In his 1930 essay “Economic possibilities for our grandchildren”, Keynes predicted that the productivity gains, the economic growth and ongoing automatization would translate into more leisure time and less work for everybody. By 2030, he said, 15 hours of work per week would suffice. It made a lot of sense from his perspective, as past experiences proved just that – for example, as Henry Ford multiplied productivity by introducing the assembly line and mass production, he could afford the introduce the 40-hour workweek. The wealth of the US and the western world has multiplied over the last decades. So how come that this did not translate into fewer working hours? What was it that Keynes didn’t take into account?
He wasn't really wrong. What he didn't account for were the massive increases in the standard of living.
So, using a pretty standard relative worth calculator we can find out that $1 in 1930 was worth in 2015:
$14.19 (by inflation)
$14.20 (by real wage or real wealth, in other words how much that could buy as a fixed bundle of goods)
$43.80 (by relative labor earnings for an unskilled worker)
$58.00 (by relative labor earnings for a production worker)
$75.80 (by relative income)
In other words, that $1 in 1930 would buy us $14.20 in today's goods. But, we'd only have to work:
14.2/43.8 *100% = 32.4% as hard to earn that money as an unskilled worker,
14.2/58 * 100% = 24.5% as hard to earn that money as a blue collar worker,
14.2/75.8 * 100% = 18.7% as hard to earn that money as an average worker.
So, assume we were working a pretty brutal 60 hour week in 1930. In 2015, we could get away with a 20 hour week (unskilled), a 15 hour week (factory job), or less than a twelve hour week (average overall worker). By 2030, I'm sure things will be even better.
The problem is that unlike someone in the 1930's, we're likely to own a car, a computer, a cell phone, use AC or heating all the time (rather than just sucking it up), eat a more varied diet of more expensive foods (many shipped in from all over the world), buy a lot more things you don't need, spend lots of money on entertainment and leisure, go on expensive holidays, have student loans (then pay for our kids' educations eventually), and drop more money than we can afford on healthcare near our/our family member's end of life. Frankly, we live better - or at least more comfortably and with better entertainment - than kings did. But, that quality of life costs.
Edit: I should probably mention that things like real estate are somewhat pegged to overall wealth (people often are willing to spend a certain percentage of income on property, which means more desirable property can quickly overtake inflationary increases in value), population (especially in cities or near certain geographical features like nice beaches). In fact, at a certain point real estate becomes a limited luxury, especially in the most expensive and desirable neighborhoods, and as incomes increase, and food/clothing/entertainment/healthcare are effectively fulfilled, the residual income left over after those are fulfilled can end up focused on real estate beyond a percentage-devoted model explanation (especially as it doubles as an investment). This can lead to things like the 2015 household purchasing power being $30.60 per $1 in 1930, and you could argue that's a better number to use than $14.2. But that still ends up with the average worker doing a 16 hour week in 2015, and probably a 15 hour one in 2030, and brings us back to how much better lives we live.
Hi! I would recommend cross-posting this question to /r/AskEconomics as well. Both communities may be able to offer varied insight into this question.