Honestly, I think you're the one being unimaginative. At no point in the post above you do I see mention of regulating away new technology, or reverting to menial labor to solve unemployment.
The only concrete thing mentioned is that it might be time to re-evaluate social policies. Which honestly makes a LOT of sense.
Only someone who can't think outside of the current social framework would assume that means we try to lock things down the way they are.
Lets think about some other possibilities:
-Free basic housing (would go a long way towards giving impoverished people the flexibility to move where they need to be to work whatever new jobs pop up)
-Pay people to exercise (yes, I'm serious, we could reduce healthcare costs and several studies show that people who exercise regularly perform better in mental tasks. The same tasks that are likely to become more in demand)
-Provide a basic income (Enough money to allow single parents to reliably put food on the table for their kids and buy simple modest luxuries. This still allows those who want more to climb the social ladder, but doesn't completely screw those who by nature or circumstance are not as equipped to do so)
-Invest heavily in community centers and activities (people are considerably less likely to suffer depression if they attend more community events. Active participation in the community makes democracy more effective)
-Any number of other ideas that challenge our current pre-conceptions of how we should run our society.
-------------------
"Only a pessimist can looks at the enormous progress made in productivity through automation, and then confidently declare that from this point forwards, things can only get worse"
This is true, in general technological advances have benefited society, but unequal wealth distribution has almost always hurt it.
Right now automation and capitalization allow those with the resources to become more and more wealthy, and those without resources are increasingly unable to get a foot in the door. Technology isn't the problem, unequal wealth IS. The obvious answer to this is a change in social policy. But like you said: "It might be uncomfortable - change always is".
The only concrete thing mentioned is that it might be time to re-evaluate social policies. Which honestly makes a LOT of sense.
Only someone who can't think outside of the current social framework would assume that means we try to lock things down the way they are.
Lets think about some other possibilities:
-Free basic housing (would go a long way towards giving impoverished people the flexibility to move where they need to be to work whatever new jobs pop up)
-Pay people to exercise (yes, I'm serious, we could reduce healthcare costs and several studies show that people who exercise regularly perform better in mental tasks. The same tasks that are likely to become more in demand)
-Provide a basic income (Enough money to allow single parents to reliably put food on the table for their kids and buy simple modest luxuries. This still allows those who want more to climb the social ladder, but doesn't completely screw those who by nature or circumstance are not as equipped to do so)
-Invest heavily in community centers and activities (people are considerably less likely to suffer depression if they attend more community events. Active participation in the community makes democracy more effective)
-Any number of other ideas that challenge our current pre-conceptions of how we should run our society.
-------------------
"Only a pessimist can looks at the enormous progress made in productivity through automation, and then confidently declare that from this point forwards, things can only get worse"
This is true, in general technological advances have benefited society, but unequal wealth distribution has almost always hurt it.
Right now automation and capitalization allow those with the resources to become more and more wealthy, and those without resources are increasingly unable to get a foot in the door. Technology isn't the problem, unequal wealth IS. The obvious answer to this is a change in social policy. But like you said: "It might be uncomfortable - change always is".