I'm not calling it good because I just don't see the graceful transition occurring. If anything, I see massive upheaval because almost everyone will deny the reality around them until it becomes impossible to do so.
In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. However, we don't live in a perfect world.
I agree with you javert, that increased efficiency and productivity are good things. But I do so for a fairly uncommon reason: I think that we have very little idea of the capacity of one person.
Our economy is still marked by massive disruption: technological innovation isn't just limited to services. Process engineering, chemical engineering, astronomy, physics, linguistics, archeology, ... they're all experiencing disruption at an increasing pace. They all increase GDP.
To me, this is an indication that as we provide people with powerful tools, their minds expand to use those tools. The exponential feedback may become much more smooth (less "disruptive") but I think we're a long way from a local maximum.
The current economy still "feels" like an idling 2-stroke leaf blower to me. It sputters and races because its carburetor and ignition are, well, inefficient.
What would it take to get a jet engine-like economy?
However, you're not answering your comment's grandparent: how to avoid, cope with, or assume away the concern that a super-high-tech economy will leave unemployed people who aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to participate.
That's a good point. The other replies suggest that "almost everybody in the world" is unlikely to learn new skills, yet they are doing amazingly well, at some things.
Threats to survival do tend to motivate "almost everybody" to attempt new skills, or attempt to change things in their favor. I deliberately avoided saying what the changes ought to be. And I don't think there are real, present threats to survival for most of us. I don't think it's a good idea to rain down mandates on "everybody else," when society is already discovering better means by working organically. I like to think of that as innovation.
My main intent in posting was to point out that there are solutions being found -- not by the "invisible hand" of economics, but by the collaborative efforts of the non-intellectual non-sophisticated "unwilling participants." Though I think education eventually has the highest payoff, I enjoy working at a community level with the innovation happening all around me.
or assume away the concern that a super-high-tech economy will leave unemployed people who aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to participate.
Is changing your intellectual sophistication hard? I mean, I learn programming by basically bashing my fingers against the keyboard. The concepts aren't difficult to learn, but it require tons of practice to become competent.
I personally work a lot with 3d animation. We use plugins and pre-made elements to create our animations. Because we are using 3rd party tools to create our final product, does this make us "middle-men (and women), glorified translators", Or is it only real if we where to make our tools form scratch.
Is changing your intellectual sophistication hard?
Uhm, how isolated are you from large swaths of society, to ask this question? The answer is yes, once a person matures into adulthood if they haven't acquired this and an appreciation for learning they almost certainly aren't going to. There are people who regard most intellectual activity with disinterest in the best case, and outright hostility in the worst. This group of people is known as "almost everybody in the world".
As for what to do with them, probably the most consistent approach if you want to stick to something resembling market economics is to let them starve. My objection to that isn't so much moral as it is practical (i.e. I dislike riots), and I favor giving them money instead.
In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. However, we don't live in a perfect world.