"Automation and AI will increase productivity and leisure time".

We got told this in the 70's (the automation part at least), yet seem to be working more and more hours now.

It seems to me that the amount of time people work stays broadly constant, but automation changes what is considered "work".

To a farm labourer from 500 years ago, sitting on factory production line attaching two parts together doesn't feel much like work.

To a production line worker from 100 years ago, sitting at a computer typing emails to people and going to meetings doesn't feel much like work.

To us today, sitting around while the 3D printers in your factory print whatever your AI engine says they should, doesn't feel much like work. But I have a feeling that future generations will get tired of constantly analysing their performance and adjusting parameters.

By that reasoning Steven Hawking is hardly doing anything, as he barely moves. Work doesn't need to mean physical labor.

Isn't that his point? 500 years ago, nobody would be willing to hire Steven Hawking. Period. He simply isn't capable of doing anything resembling what they would have considered work, even with the use of the modern tools he uses to interact with the world. Today, however, he is able to be a completely productive member of society because the work we need to do is completely different – and the work we need to do 500 years from now will unlikely resemble much of what we do today.

Mostly because it's the gains from automation that goes to Wall Street and not Main Street. The idea that you or I could personally enjoy the benefits of automation beyond the trivial devices we buy (IoTs, Washers/Dryers, etc) frightens the capital owners because that means we too could be competition. We too could produce for our own needs and not their designs on our needs. Keeping us away from automation is as much important to the capital owners as them utilizing it to reduce labor inputs to grow their expected ROI. It's a strange situation I think Wall Street has found itself in. It needs automation but equally fears the outcome of it (where people just take automation away from them and care for themselves).

Well, we can produce what was considered enough back then without working so much. People just keep want more, more, more.

Most people under 40 can't afford a house in many western countries. Compared to 20 years ago, most people could (at least in the two countries I am familiar with - the UK or Spain).

The very rich seem to be doing OK though.

The more, more, more does seem to wind up with fewer people.

I'm skeptical of the unaffordable housing arguments, though. People only talk about a handful of cities. At least in the US, there's plenty of cheap places to live. They just aren't trendy.

Those happen to be the cities where the jobs are. Sure there are cheap places in the UK, but not much chance of a decent tech job in those places.

It's not true in the US anyway.

I agree. But lately, I have been more aware of the fact that ecological catastrophe could make all this potential irrelevant.