Earning potential should be considered in the context of increased wealth disparity though. After all, the rich and the poor are competing for the same resources. I work for a well known chip design company as an embedded software developer, and wages in my country (Australia) have not kept up with house prices (like many countries). Part of the housing price equation is buying power of the wealthy, which prices out younger people and those without family wealth. There's no scenario where my wages get me out of the rent cycle, no matter how productive I am and how much unpaid overtime I do to further the company goals.

I agree that the purchasing power of wages ought to be considered in this context. It is certainly true that one's wages must increase at a faster rate than prices for it to be considered a net positive.

I would argue that housing prices are artificially inflated. Supply is constrained by regulations like zoning and rent controls, which causes scarcity and hence higher prices for existing housing.

I would argue that, like other technological advances, the advent of AI will lead to greater productivity, and thus more abundant resources, given that the supply of labor does not shrink.

Agree that housing is definitely an issue, but not one without a solution.

I agree regarding housing. What I'm sceptical about is whether these potential productivity gains benefit those who work to survive or those who live (or at least derive a substantial income) from passive gains from assets. Have we not increased productivity since the year 2000? In those 25 years things have not got better for workers. My parents come up into the middle class from abject poverty in the 50s (think wards of the state and foster homes). Free education and a much less competitive job market, and low house prices and rents, enabled them to get up in the economic hierarchy. If they were born in the 90s like I was, there would be no chance of that.