Alrighty then:

If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

Just want to point out that it was in fact Marx and Engels who came up with the idea of "production, consumption, distribution". Until then production was pre-supposed to be far more important than distribution.

I didn't realize that.

I wonder if distribution can ever change in a winner-take-all system like we currently have.

It would take tremendous political will.

Oddly enough the "good" thing about our system in this regard is that it is so VERY winner-take-all that a relatively few individuals can have a big impact. When the top 1% owns more than 40% of all the wealth, you're not really talking about moving the masses. I have to say though... historically the only thing that moves the wealthy in situations like these is a real and pressing fear of revolutionary change. :/

Then what we need now is some revolutionary leadership. 

5700 Reddit comments:

https://reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/47oecy/stephen_hawking_says_we_should_really_be_scared/