"the implied message was that there is no problem and intervention is not needed"

No, again, I just addressed the point of the article, 'productivity'. To move on to address the 'social', etc. results from getting more productivity via information technology would have been 'off the subject'. Or, raw productivity remains important.

For your concerns about China, I'm not much concerned. My biggest concern would be that they will be able to compete more for some of the 'world-market' goods such as oil. But, the US doesn't have to be short of oil: We are just awash in shale oil and coal, both of which can be made into gasoline, at roughly present prices. And longer term, with bioreactions, possibly endothermic and driven by electric power from nuclear reactions, we need not be short on energy in any important forms.

For the US 'standard of living' in, say, GDP per person, one decade at a time, I see that increasing at a nice rate and not falling. Yes, GDP per person is an 'average', and taking the average raises some issues: So on the one hand is someone out of work who made $50,000 a year, and on the other hand is someone who gets a vacation for three months in the south of France in a hotel at $2000 a day. So, how to 'average' that?

Or, after $100 million, who would even walk across the street for another $1 million, yet a poor person would crawl across the street for $1000, $100, maybe $10. So with a high GDP per person, we can have more people not willing to walk across a street for another $1 million while we have others stuck with very low fraction of the GDP.

Broadly, a society awash in cheap robots should not have nearly all the humans destitute and on the streets but with really well off humans being served by the robots!

Really, that desirable future needs more, actually MUCH more, economic productivity because the GDP per person now is not nearly high enough.

So, one issue is increasing the GDP per person; another issue is what to do with the increases.

Here's a first-cut, fairly automatic resolution: Currently an information technology entrepreneur can start a business, get a large increase in productivity, keep the revenue and earnings, and put out of work a lot of other people. Well, as people go out of work, the safety net will cost more and taxes will increase. Then the entrepreneur will not deploy the technology unless the revenue can cover BOTH some earnings AND the taxes for the safety net. So, technology that does get deployed will increase productivity enough to pay for both the technology AND the people put out of work. Or, instead of the Google founders being worth maybe $15 billion each and putting out of work thousands of people in, say, newspaper classified ad departments, the Google founders will pay higher taxes and the safety net for the former newspaper workers will improve. Our politics and society might move to such a situation without ever really agreeing that 'technology should pay for the jobs it kills' or some such.

For the politics, I'm against stupid government that makes things much worse, and we've had WAY to much of that. It would be negligent for me not to mention the real cause of the housing bubble that caused The Great Recession: My view is that the bubble was caused by stupid government, by Obama (when he was a Senator), the Black Congressional Caucus, and Barney Frank telling Fannie and Freddie to back junk paper. It was NOT caused in any significant sense by Wall Street, 'complex' financial instruments, AIG, or the bond rating agencies. I do agree with Greenspan that he was a significant cause.

I do want my slice of the pie to get bigger but from making the whole pie bigger, not from taking from someone else, but this desire does not translate very directly into any feasible, effective 'political action'.

Beyond politics, a crucial issue is, yes, good government and, then, MORE, actually MUCH more, economic productivity. Only with more GDP per person can we have the safety net as strong as we want it. Or "The problem with socialism is that it too soon runs out of other people's money.". Right. So, one solution is enough more economic productivity so that the other people won't run out of money. Simple enough.

Then there will be other problems: The political system can split into (1) the people working and (2) the people in the saftey net. Then the people in (2) can so choke the geese in (1) who are producing the golden eggs that in every sense standard of living stagnates. Indeed, that is a common description of just what is going on in most of the more socialistic European countries.

Yes, a worker makes a big 'investment' in education, training, experience, etc. in their career. In accounting terms, that investment is an asset on their personal, financial balance sheet. Then when they lose their job, they have to 'write off' that asset. That 'write off' shows as a big loss on their income statement for that year. So, who covers that loss? The person and no one else. And, you are correct: We are short of capital to replace that asset on that person's balance sheet. So, the person is now 'under capitalized' and like such a business that has shut down and left a building with a leaky roof, broken windows, and weeds in the parking lot. Not good.

Before the economy gets going again, we may have to open 'camps' where people live in dorms and eat in common cafeterias.