Paradox of Abundance

From Paradox of Abundance Automation Anxiety Returns by David H. Autor.  From the Abstract:

Despite sustained increases in material standards of living, fear of the adverse employment consequences of technological advancement has recurred repeatedly. This represents a paradox of abundance: technological change threatens social welfare not because it intensifies scarcity but because it augments abundance. For most citizens of market economies, the primary income-generating asset they possess is their scarce labor. If rapid technological advances were to effectively substitute cheap and abundant capital for (previously) expensive and willful labor, society would be made wealthier, not poorer, in aggregate, but those who own labor but do not own capital might find it increasingly challenging to make a living. This chapter considers why automation anxiety has suddenly become salient in popular and academic discourse. It offers informed conjectures on the potential implications of these developments for employment and earnings.

There is a slightly different version of the Paradox of Abundance.  In the second formulation, there is less concern about how the abundance occurs (as from technological innovation) but rather is focused on the consequences of the abundance itself.

Yes, with abundance, all floating boats rise, but some rise faster than others.  Quantity increases for everyone.  The overall average quality decreases but the increase in quantity allows specialization which drives increased quality for the most select or discerning.

Take as an example, wine.  Once largely a luxury accessible only to the richest.  As long as it was a luxury good, the quality was high but available only to a small group.  With a globalized and vastly enlarged wine market, more people all up and down the income range can enjoy wine.  The median or mean wine quality might be lower than in the past when it was a luxury item but now it is accessible to all and the quality at the highest end increases significantly.  

Another example would be quantity and quality of news reporting.  We used to get news from a select number of channels (radio and TV) and a select number of newspapers.  And only at specified times of the day.  

With the introduction of the internet in 2000 and smartphones in 2007, the quantity of "news reporting" has increased by orders of magnitude, the average quality overall has probably decreased, but the average quality of the very best has also dramatically improved.  The Paradox of Abundance - everyone has more, some having lesser quality than the old average but available and others having even better than they had.