I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Yes, you're getting it now.

But you're not.

Even a cursory look at the history of debates on "technological unemployment" shows most authorities holding mixed views. It's only in the last 150 years where economists' views conveniently start dovetailing with those of industrialists, who obviously profit from and deflect criticism with the academic consensus, "Technology always employs more than it displaces!"

The theory that severely disruptive technology leads to more jobs should be modified to "Disruptive technological revolutions eventually- after a long period of time during which new jobs develop as a result of them - appear to create more jobs than they initially displace. Most of the initially displaced, however, do not receive these new jobs. In many cases, economies only eclipse initial jobs lost with new jobs gained decades, or perhaps a generation, after the introduction of the disruptive technology." That describes the phenomenon in total, as it should be explained.