http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf A mostly ignored text, but a must read imo. I pondered what I considered the central proposition in this essay, that is, that technological advances will both increase our standard of living and at the same time that we will have to work less to achieve it. I claim this has not happened on average even in rich countries like America, but that it has happened per person. In other words, had the population stayed constant, we would all be rich. Instead, what has happened is that the same pool of resources has been spread thinner to a huge population explosion and people living longer. I believe that Keynes did not take these things into consideration as negative effects of technological advances. His function says: Good life = f(technological advances). I say dx/dt = ax - bxy Where x is Good Life, and b is the newborn rate given technological advances. The predator/prey equation. In other words, soon to be born people (which technological advances itself accelerates) are predators to the existing populations (prey) standard of living. This might also explain why we seek a class society (the living want seniority) and trickle down economics (government tries to dampen that seniority).
Strikes me as a pointless discussion until the key terms (standard of living, work, rich, etc) are actually defined.