The assertion is "growing the economy does not benefit the average person; the rich take all the gains". Well, let's think about moving in the opposite direction: "Shrinking the economy does not hurt the average person; the rich will take all the damage".
When I put it that way, the statement seems (at least to me) much less believable. So we have a statement about the shape of the productivity-vs-personal-well-being graph that seems believable if we move one direction, but seems unbelievable if we move the other direction. That makes me much more skeptical of the whole idea.
I think it's more likely to be the case that we aren't recognizing all the ways that productivity is enhancing the average person's well-being.
This is sloppily argued, but it's essentially right about a lot of things. (You can hear the same arguments, albeit made with much more clarity, 150 years ago in Henry George's "Progress and Poverty.")
The assertion is "growing the economy does not benefit the average person; the rich take all the gains". Well, let's think about moving in the opposite direction: "Shrinking the economy does not hurt the average person; the rich will take all the damage".
When I put it that way, the statement seems (at least to me) much less believable. So we have a statement about the shape of the productivity-vs-personal-well-being graph that seems believable if we move one direction, but seems unbelievable if we move the other direction. That makes me much more skeptical of the whole idea.
I think it's more likely to be the case that we aren't recognizing all the ways that productivity is enhancing the average person's well-being.