The trap I find myself in is that (at least here in the UK) we are all in competition with each other for a fixed, limited resource. Housing. I earn a very good wage, as does my wife, but we still work tough jobs for long hours so that we can afford a nice house, in a good location, with a garden for our kids to grow up in. No matter how much people like me earn, we will just use it to bid up house prices even more. Everyone blames the government or the banks, etc for house prices and how hard we have to work to afford a nice place. The truth is we're doing it to ourselves and each other.

That's a cultural construct, not an economic one. In a lot of other countries, it's perfectly acceptable to rent or live in flats, or around cities that are not the capital; but in England, these conditions carry a huge social stigma, which is compounded by deeply-entrenched classism. It's a perfect storm, really; but yeah, you're doing it to yourself. Move to Manchester ;)

Also in other places eg Florida it's considered ok to build inexpensive housing. England's covered with fields and woods but it's considered horrific to build on which helps the high prices. Also if you built in London like they do in Guangzhou you could pack about 5 times as many people but again people hate the idea.

> That's a cultural construct

The rental versus buying dichotomy is orthogonal to the issue of limited supply. If everyone rents there is still the same overall demand for accommodation, hence rents would be high (due to limited supply) and that would propagate through to push up property prices. End result is the same.

that was one example he gave, you've not diminished his point in any way by questioning only a part of his argument.

It's interesting to 'follow the money' in the UK situation. If we were building more houses then prices would be lower and money would be flowing into construction and therefore the working population as a whole.

With constrained supply the money flows to existing property owners which are generally older, more likely to be retired, etc. That older group probably spend a lot of that excess wealth on holidays and social care. If that excess wealth was reduced then the discretionary purchases would drop first (the holidays). Probably the economy would have a very different 'shape' if construction supply was increased to meet demand.

But if the future is uncertain and filled with automation , isn't the correct response - to work hard and earn a lot (or even bet on a startup) , live cheap, and save a lot ?

If this was the only effect of technology, it would obviously not be good. However, technology has also greatly improved the quality of life.

I'd also argue that an end to work is something that we, as a society, are simply not ready for. Firstly, because our current economic system isn't capable of handling such a change, but also societally, people aren't ready for it. If I recall, there have been studies that have linked earlier retirement to a reduced life expectancy.

> there have been studies that have linked earlier retirement to a reduced life expectancy

If you count retirement as sitting around doing nothing then I agree. But retirement shouldnt mean retirement from doing things - just retirement from working for someone else to be able to support yourself.

When I 'retire' I'll get much more personally meaningful things done, which otherwise would not earn me enough money to support a family.

> But retirement shouldnt mean retirement from doing things

It shouldn't, but the studies suggest this is what happens in practice.

Yes I suppose when you retire at 65 or 70, after a long life of labor, then doing nothing is probably what happens.

But what about the chance to retire at, say, 45? I imagine many folks at that age, having the 2nd half of their lives ahead of them, would go on to focus on a more personal passion that is also active.

Yes, this article's frame is horrific. Like a "glitch in the matrix" moment that illustrates something really wrong with our society, ridiculous ideologies which infect us all.

"If there's ever a sign that a society is organized really stupidly, it's that the prospect that actual manual labor being eliminated is a problem. If we don't know what to do with freedom and liberty... that’s pretty messed up." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ruS17ivinU&feature=youtu.be...)

What jobs do we squander our lives with? 37% of British workers think their jobs are meaningless. ("Bullshit jobs" is the technical term. The anthropologist who popularized it thought only 25% would've described their job as meaningless.) (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/12/british-jobs-meaningles...)

Yes, we have this weird notion that people "need" a job and "deserve" a job. But work is something people actually don't want! We might need or deserve an income, but not a job. I've worked hard to reduce the amount of work I have to do. Now I only work part time but I'm still in my 30's and have the same income as many other people my age. I hope to reduce that even further as time goes on.

If we really end up with nothing to do but desperately need to be forced to work, maybe forced labor camps would solve the problem </s>

Most people are hostile towards this idea, they think it would be unfair if others didnt have to work as much as they did 'to get here'. It will take few generations until we grow up to accept basic income.

I think this is good. Most species need to dedicate their effort to hunting/gathering/nest building, and having need to do work I think makes you appreciate and value the non-work time more.

Technology has given me such an awesome way to make a living that makes me feel so lucky. Life for me now is far more enjoyable and easier than my time at school or college, purely because I get to work on the things I enjoy.

Work never ends.

If we 'developed' the world, why not develop other planets and so on and so forth.

Your utopia is close to North Korea's.

Do you really think that all or most people will share the same attitude towards life sans work as yours and won't fall into depression or trivial, aimless, meaningless or destructive activities?