The point of production is consumption.
The point of production is slavery organised for personal profit. Accidentally, progress for the common good occasionally falls out as a side effect - usually only after it's demanded. But it's a side benefit, not the main event.
It's not just about Jobs™ - it's about the realisation that beyond a certain point it's impossible to run an economy for purely material ends.
If you expand production to include non-material benefits - creativity, scientific investigation, personal development, innovation, increasing psychological and social maturity - then physical constraints become much less important.
You could, in fact, have a steady-state material economy with closed resource cycles, and efficient energy use, underpinning a booming and potentially expansive non-material economy.
People would have to get used to buying and wasting less crap, but there might be benefits to that model they haven't yet experienced.
The real problem is the cult-like nature of the economic religion, and its strictly limited beliefs about what constitutes good experience.
You can't understand economics algorithmically. It's entirely a ritual activity, not a rational one, and the only way to disinvent it is to replace its rituals with more survivable ones.
The term had fallen out of general use but Milton Friedman brought it back in the '60s. My own view is that, prior to Time Magazine's "God is Dead" cover, the vast majority of US citizens believed that the USA was protected by God's providence, so there was no scope for an "Invisible Hand" theory, except, perhaps, as the "Left Hand of God" As this view began to lose traction, a bowdlerized version of Adam Smith's metaphor was put forward as a more secular version of Divine Providence. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
