It depends on definitions and where you set the goalposts i guess.
Like there have obviously not been the same seismic shifts in the last 20 years as happened between 1900 and 2000. For many people life may have changed more fundamentally between 1750 and 1850* than either 1900-2000 or 1999-2019
(*in the UK, with the industrial revolution reshaping the nation from primarily agricultural to primarily industrial, this was such a huge upheaval and for a population not expecting change as we do now)
In terms of technology, technological advancement etc. there may well have been more progress made, there is certainly likely to have been more data gathered in the last 20 years than in the 100 years before that. The issue is this progress is only really understood by scientists and specialists whereas the industrial revolution, or the rise of commercial aircraft or the space race are all big obvious things that intrude into everyone's lives in a way we couldn't ignore.
Having said all that I'm pretty sure if he was honest Ray would say that he overestimated the changes, r overestimated how much the progress would affect day to day life, or how fast the progress would filter through to end products.
Here's a thought: I'm sure you've all seen the S curves and know abut the idea of accelerating returns, but it could very well be that the time needed to turn a breakthrough into a commercial product that can disrupt people's lives is always going to be 3-5 years from invention to commercialisation, even for incredibly valuable/major advances.
So futurist predictions may need a "commercialisation period" added on which should also decrease over time, but probably slower than the speed up we see in pure research/understanding which is more closely tied to the various exponential improvements in sectors .