because we still have to compete with each other over resources (opportunities, wage, customers, etc)? Working less wouldn't give you an advantage? It's a race to the bottom and you see it everywhere.
a) As he titled the paper "possibilities" then the "predicted" vocabulary is clickbait; has anyone explored if it's possible to buy a 1930s basket on 15 hours of 2020s labour?
> I would predict that the standard of life in progressive countries
one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is.
Note the qualification "in progressive countries"; have we any?
c) I've heard that the ratio between the cost of nails and the price of lettuce is still more or less the same as it was in the 1770s; the big difference is that in the 2020s a "yeoman farmer" doesn't want to buy nails with their market goods, but wants to buy cars and smartphones.
d) Finally, on the parochial basis that my life revolves around informatics, we've vastly exceeded the 4-8 times Keynes actually predicted.
His future is here — it's just not evenly distributed.
What a nice bubble world view. "People don't work less hours because they would gain so much more money if they worked more"
What is actually much closer to the reality of the majority of working people is that they work 15hours a day and STILL they can't earn what they need to live a quality life.
His prediction was wrong because his theory was wrong
Not an economist.
reply