nostr:npub1kpwlxpzkxfmuxjmzc2wp3rf9vjg0sgydmlhsnrgqr3maf59h86qqdxxzz4 Well, i have to concede that i am sometimes a bit all over the place.  

Let me try it a bit more structured:  

As productivity gains happen, there are multiple consequences.  
1- Production increases, given that the investment of material and labor is not protracted to the point where it declines (assumption: it does increase)  
2- There is more product  
3- Less work is used  

Now, deriving from that, we get:  
a- More availability of the product, decreasing prices (your main point)  
b- More profits as a consequence of 2 even though a, because the cost went down due to 3  

So far, i guess you would agree?  

Now my point is that increased profits from b are concentrated on the owners of businesses, something that is not a law of physics, but due to the design of private instead of collective ownership. It may be what is established as normal, but i see no convincing argument that it had to be that way.  

If we had a distribution of those arising profits that was more broad, we could argue for a direct increase in free time from 3 and b, yet what tracks is only the decreased prices from a, making this way less efficient in terms of "people and their spendings" (citing you) as b affects only a very small amount of people.  

I hope this clears things up.