alt Hacker NewsThis has probably been true of all invention / automation: when we went from handwashing to using washing machines, did we start doing more leisurely things for the hours that were saved by that 'labour saving' device?
> Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into two classes --those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which are relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows. Needs of the second class, those which satisfy the desire for superiority, may indeed be insatiable; for the higher the general level, the higher still are they. But this is not so true of the absolute needs-a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps than we are all of us aware of, when these needs are satisfied in the sense that we prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes.
[…]
> For many ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will need to do some work if he is to be contented. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the rich to-day, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But beyond this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter-to make what work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible. Three-hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great while. For three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of us!
* John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930)
* http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf
An essay putting forward / hypothesizing four reasons on why the above did not happen (We haven't spread the wealth around enough; People actually love working; There's no limit to human desires; Leisure is expensive):
* https://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7254877/keynes-work-leisure
We probably have more leisure time (and fewer hours worked: five versus six days) in general, but it's still being filled (probably especially in the US where being "productive" is an unofficial religion).
Replies
What?? What do you think we’re doing instead of handwashing clothes exactly?
Washing machines are deterministic. Automation is deterministic. AI is not deterministic. AI is not a tool. AI is destined to be what it is now, a parlor trick designed to passify and amuse.
One additional factor to consider is that in most cases those setting the leisure hours (i.e. employers) are not the same ones enjoying the leisure (i.e. employees). While the leisure/productivity tradeoff applies to an individual, an economically rational employer only really values productivity and will only offer as much leisure time as necessary to attract and retain employees. So while social forces do generally push for additional leisure over time, such as shorter work weeks, it's often challenging for people to find the type of employment situation where they have significant flexibility in trading off income for leisure time.
As an example, I have a pretty good paying, full-time white collar job. It would be much more challenging if not impossible to find an equivalent job making half as much working 20 hours a week. Of course I could probably find some way to apply the same skills half-time as a consultant or whatever, but that comes with a lot of tradeoffs besides income reduction and is less readily available to a lot of people.
Maybe the real exception here is at the top of the economic ladder, although at that point the mechanism is slightly different. Billionaires have pretty infinite flexibility on leisure time because their income is almost entirely disconnected from the amount of "labor" they put in.