I'm not convinced this point carries. Sure, "lump of labor" is a fallacy, more productivity is not likely to drive massive unemployment. But that doesn't mean all labor is interchangeably easy in all environments. Competition is still possible.
Early tractors didn't do much for underdeveloped nations. Mainframe computers didn't either. The default state of capital-intensive technology is to improve productivity, but not to bring capital and work into underdeveloped nations. Whatever benefits accrue there are the diffuse rewards of expanding global production.
The economic boom in China, Taiwan, etc was something vastly more specific than "rising labor productivity". Container ships, telecommunications, (Western labor laws,) and efficient but labor-intensive production came together to make offshoring incredibly profitable. The boom wasn't just rising productivity, it was a confluence of incentives that made production in certain countries much more attractive than others. We didn't just make more things, we closed factories in the West and reopened them in China.
If the next wave of productivity gains is high-capital, high-tech, low-labor, we'll probably see the reverse happen. People will engage in production where they can get extremely stable infrastructure (including internet), skilled labor, and precision parts. Factories in countries with cheap labor but unreliable power and internet might well close in favor of more production in countries like South Korea or even America. That won't be the end of the world, productivity will still rise, but it might end the specific forces that have caused so much growth via mass production.