Agreed with the conceptual distinctions explaining how tech changes make some jobs valuable and others not.
My sense is that such explanations or modeling of life with tech do not satisfy most of us, and are not really useful at the street level. What most of us want is a stable base for survival, so that we can thrive freely. That we can say “see! The rust belt is easy to explain!” is fundamentally a non sequitur for those of us who have not asked to be born, nor to live in this or that economy, nor to be educated with this or that skillset and mindset.
I would call the issues of relating tech innovation and disruption to the capacity for thriving and participating freely to society a matter of values, or priorities. Just trying to use common words.
What is more valuable for whom? Is the ability of many to participate to society freely and productively important? Then most disruption does not seem productive, since it seems each new wave of tech lessens drastically the quality of life perceived by most.
In other words, I wonder : would most villagers you suggested really dream of tech unemployment and social disruption, for them, their families, children etc ??
Or, in yet other words, how to measure the value of an “oekonomikon”, i.e. household practices which is the greek source of the thinking about “oeconomy”? What is the value of mass breakdown of social practices? Adam Smith and co were, I think, still linking industriousness, industry, and households, or “oeconomy”. Do we still have the conceptual tools to do so? Or are we stuck with people being simply resources… for what or whom?