Unless/until there were a revolution, increased automation leads to increased inequality rather than a 'post-scarcity society', though.

Should we restart the buggy whip assembly lines to "re-create" all those jobs? What about all the jobs lost to car assembly robots, which probably pushed down the cost to make said cars?

Increased automation doesn't have to mean increased inequality -- ideally, it would lead to a gradual reduction in average work hours. Working hours for people in first-world western nations are evidence of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Gradual_decrease_i...

I think the lesson of the 21st century is that people don't want reduced work hours. They'll just work as hard as they can for even more utilons/status points/dollars.

I mean, it's not like Paul Graham ever had to work another day after he sold Viaweb. Nevertheless, you see him still working. (And he's not an outlier.)

That's not necessarily true. There was a study making the rounds ~2 years ago done by two Princeton researchers, indicating that once you hit ~$75,000+ a year in income, your emotional well-being doesn't significantly improve past that amount.

It follows that if you could make $75,000+ working 20 hours a week, you'd be quite happy. I know I certainly would =) (Yes, I'm sure there have been studies done on the correlation of life satisfaction and keeping busy; that's what hobbies are for! I'm sure there are plenty of happy, busy retired people.)

http://wws.princeton.edu/news/Income_Happiness/ (press release) http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1011492107 (actual study)