I have not seen any post here about the matter I wish to raise, hence I will risk a post.
People on this thread talk about one of the reasons for reduced thrust takeoffs as "reduced engine wear".
I respectfully advice that it's not "reduced wear" as in the wear of the bearings in a car engine, it's actually reduced engine life which is somewhat different. Turbine blades and guide vanes are generally operating at maximum takeoff power in gas streams some Two to Three hundred degrees above the melting point of the alloys from which they are made. What keeps them from melting is the flow of cooling air through their bodies.
Despite the internal cooling, the gas stream gradually erodes the blades and vanes, and the rate of erosion is a direct function of temperature and time. The hotter they are, the longer they are, the shorter their life before they degrade to the point where they must be exchanged. I can't find images on the net of what they look like before they are replaced, but I can say they look something like a sort of melted turbine blade shaped icecream.
The motive for reducing takeoff thrust is thus to maximise the life of the blades and vanes which are effectively consumables, even though every airline I'm aware of keeps those that cannot be repaired in the (vain) hope that one day new repair schemes will one day allow these super expensive items to be returned to service.
To put it another way, the time X temperature product of the blades is finite, and each take off consumes a little of that finite life. That's why it is desirable to use the minimum thrust consistent with safety.