There are always exceptions, and you can find automatic watches with a 10 day power reserve, perpetual calendar, and good accuracy in some models of premium brands like Patek Philippe, IWC, etc. Generally, these models are quite expensive, sold as rare complications or among the best watches of each brand.
The way I see it, there is not really any improvement to justify yearly price rises (or each 6 months like Rolex does). You can name Spring-Drive (if you consider it automatic), Co-Axial escapement, and other minor innovations. And yet, most automatic watches around $5000 still have a 3 day power reserve, force you to manually change the date, and the accuracy is not so good.
But they look really good and they are better finished than the cheaper ones. The problem is, I should expect a much better reserve, calendar and accuracy from a $5000 Rolex than from a $500 Seiko. Because the most important thing about a watch is the watch function, not the case. A Ferrari is expected to look really good but to perform accordingly too. It would be crazy to pay for a todays Ferrari that performs like a 50 year old one, just because it looks good outside.
I don't really understand why expensive watches do not offer these "premium" features by default, something that with todays technology should be mandatory. A 50 year old Ferrari was really fast and great for its time, and you paid for that. Why do horology aficionados think is ok to pay that much for 50 year old tech? If you are going to collect old stuff try to get the original old piece, as a Ferrari collector would do.
TLDR: Automatic watch industry is technologically dead, but it seems ok for everybody to pay outrageous amounts of money -conveniently rising each year- for it. Marketing for minor improvements makes possible for buyers to focus discussions justifying what they pay, instead of questioning why they shouldn't get much more for their money.