This being said, there is a large divergence between exponential increase in computation and macroeconomic growth. The gains from computation have been highly consolidated (to a small number of extremely talented entrepreneurs not unlike our own HN community), whereas other major industries have stagnated or declined (housing, finance, manufacturing). I believe Tyler Cowen and his "Great Stagnation" sums it up nicely in that the net loss in those industries has been larger and more relevant macroeconomically than the relatively concentrated gains in Silicon Valley.

tl;dr: computation is fueling rapid new industries which create wealth, but that wealth is highly consolidated as it does not require labor to grow (labor required is replaced by computation). This causes economic stagnation for the great majority of the population (+/- 2 std dev of mean or 95%) who are unable to capitalize on the computational opportunities.

I generally agree with your definition of my terms and your points. I would note that "Wealth" itself is a poorly defined term even compared other fuzzy economic terms. Micro-level technology is giving many people more range of actions than ever before but it's impact on measured economic wealth has been obscure.

A much larger portion of homeless people have cellphones today than ten years ago. But larger portion of people are homeless today than ten years ago - at least if you believe this is a recession.

If tomorrow, a chemical was released into the atmosphere which doubled the lifespan of everyone on earth, most would agree life would be improved. Yet no one would have a cent more money and it is actually hard to say what its impact on the economic system would be.

if lifespan of everybody doubled it would have devastating effect on world economy, as one of the most important issues we face today is population aging (and not just in developed world, but in China as well for example).