"if a technology transition releases a lot of productivity, it also drastically lowers cost of whatever is affected (delivered goods, which is everything). This, by rights, should free up a lot of extra money for people"
And here is the problem. What actually happens is the people who control "production" end up with most of this extra money.
What actually happens is the people who control "production" end up with most of this extra money.
This is not true. It's actually a pretty well-understood economic phenomena.
When changes to pricing is forced by changes in upstream costs, as with this example, but also as forced by increased taxes/fees, etc., you can predict who will bear the brunt of the cost (or enjoy the windfall) based on the elasticity of the buyer.
For example, we know that the elasticity for gasoline is very inelastic, because consumption only changes a small amount in response to price changes. This means that an increase in taxes on the petroleum industry will be borne mostly by the consumer, and not the producer.
However, for other industries where consumers are more likely to change their spending habits in relation to price changes, it will be the consumers that are on the winning side.
Not really. You would only end up with one group controlling all the extra money if there was a monopoly and pricing control. Even if you have a handful of shipping companies with the automated delivery technology whatever cost gains there are will soon be passed onto the customers.
Lowered cost of production always results in lowered cost of goods, which either raises quality for the same price, or lowers cost and released cash for other purchases.
And here is the problem. What actually happens is the people who control "production" end up with most of this extra money.