But is this supposed to go on ad infinitum ? What if at some point the new jobs created are worse than the jobs that were lost ? Does everyone in the US need to have a so-called service job or else be an information worker ? And to what end l so that cheaper items can result in more conspicuous consumption to fuel the accumulation of wealth by those who are lucky enough to own stock and the companies that are profiting from this. I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed. But that would seem to be a better goal than whatever the meaningless metric of the GDP in and of itself.

> But is this supposed to go on ad infinitum?

Yes... That's how technological progress works? Countless millions of jobs were lost during the Industrial Revolution, but in there place were new jobs often requiring new (and more) skills. The pace of that turnover has been increasing since the invention of the wheel, one problem now is that we've crossed a threshold where the rate of change is no longer intergenerational but intragenerational.

> I don't know if there is some kind of steady state sustainable economy where enough people have meaningful productive outlets (aka jobs w/o coercive bosses) and we as humans are not extracting or destroying more of the non-human planetary resources than can easily be renewed.

This doesn't exist and has never existed; it's only that the rate of change has come to a point where it's now easily perceived (and financially felt). I would even argue it will never, and should never exist. Should we lessen the impact that this rate of change can have on people's lives? Yes, with better access to social services and education. Should we lessen the impact that the global economy has on the environment? Yes. Should we strive towards some steady, and therefore stagnant, equilibrium? No, absolutely not.

Anyway, the point is that every small bit of technological progress fundamentally changes the economy and that inevitably changes what jobs are needed. Jobs are created and destroyed, it's the nature of progress.

I would argue that the notion of infinite growth through technological progress is a fallacy based upon an incomplete set of data and a projection of a limited time sphere into the future. When the industrial "revolution" started the world was a much less exploited place. Now I'm not going to argue that iteration and improvement are bad or that innovation, research and pondering fundamental questions through rigorous scientific analysis are bad but I also don't think that we need a consumer driven society to fuel these things. I suspect that we fell into a certain social pattern as a species (let's call it capitalism) and that many of the ideas we now take as given, that w/o economic growth there is "stagnation" are simply one interpretation of the data through a heavily confirmation biased lens.

Many human and non-human lives have been sacrificed at the altar of the "cult of progress" and I don't think we should be so willing to think because something has happened for the last 100-200 years (rapid technological change and exponential exploitation of natural resources) that it can go on forever.

Look, my point was not that we "need a consumer driven society" though I think history has shown it to be extremely effective. My point was that, regardless of the economic system, with technological progress comes fundamental changes to the state of the economy. New jobs are created and inefficient/unneeded jobs are destroyed, that's true actually by definition. "Bringing back jobs" runs completely counter to those changes in the economy and therefore technological progress.