There is certainly a huge problem with displacing labour in multiple industries at the same time, but the economic story told here in "three turns" is different. When productivity rises costs drop, but because of competition, almost the entire gain has to translate not to increased margins but to reduced prices. Paul Krugman recently used this to explain the large disparity between growth in GDP as normally measured in fixed prices (i.e. inflation-adjusted to consumer prices in some fixed year) and growth in GDP as measured in PPP, i.e. when adjusted to consumer prices in every year. If making computers, say, becomes much more productive, the growth in productivity in, say, 1980 prices, seems very large, but in PPP is not only smaller, but the beneficiaries aren't computer manufacturers but anyone who uses computers.
Of course, lower prices don't solve your problems if you're unemployed. Demand, indeed, drops if many people are unemployed, which pushes prices further down, but this time across the board, not just in the more productive industries - a recession.
> Of course, lower prices don't solve your problems if you're unemployed. Demand, indeed, drops if many people are unemployed, which pushes prices further down, but this time in a way that can lead to a recession.
This is the major risk right now.
I think we'll need to strongly look at UBI and a star trek esque future or, barring that, something more like a star wars esque future..
doesnt this entire premise rely on an even shock to all parts of the labour economy
It will be more like a tsunami. Comes in waves, knocks down one economic later at a time.