The second is describing an all-ready existing phenomenon of cost disease which while concerning has been compatible with high rates of growth and progress over the past 200 years.
I want to add further that cost disease is not only compatible with economic growth, cost disease itself is a result of economic growth, at least in the usual sense of the word. The Baumol effect—which is what people usually mean when they say cost disease—is simply a side effect of some industries becoming more productive more quickly than others. Essentially the only way to avoid cost disease is to have uniform growth across all industries, and that’s basically never happened historically, except during times of total stagnation (in which growth is ~0% in every industry).
I want to add further that cost disease is not only compatible with economic growth, cost disease itself is a result of economic growth, at least in the usual sense of the word. The Baumol effect—which is what people usually mean when they say cost disease—is simply a side effect of some industries becoming more productive more quickly than others. Essentially the only way to avoid cost disease is to have uniform growth across all industries, and that’s basically never happened historically, except during times of total stagnation (in which growth is ~0% in every industry).