The article pretty obviously is written under the assumption that more jobs is better. I am challenging that assumption. I am not suggesting that the article does not show how more jobs are created.

The fact remains unchanged that a bunch of people got the crap end of the automation stick. It is not unreasonable to think that maybe there was a better way to got about the automation that was both good for the people being displaced, and created a bunch of jobs? My previous questions were sort of aimed here, but when I wrote them I had not yet coherently formed this most recent question.

This is like when someone calls in to call in radio show about how the new way of qualifying for the rugby world cup asking "should we really be encouraging our kids to play such a violent game?" OK. Good Question. We can talk about that next week. Today we're talking about qualifying matches. Most people who listen to this show like rugby, so we probably will keep relying on the assumption that rugby is fun and we should keep doing it.

Yes. There is an assumption that employment is better then unemployment, indirectly. The point being challenged (automation causes unemployment) assumes that unemployment is bad and the counterargument goes on assuming that. It doesn't (as you suggest) assume that employment is the only possibly important thing in the world.

If you would like to make the case that employment is not good or that automation is bad for some reason not related to employment, go ahead. It is perfectly reasonable to write that article with the assumptions that it made.

If you read carefully, the more jobs situation was 40 years later. This means that at least for some time, unemployment was higher as a result of the automation. The thing to remember is that you can't mothball workers, you cant say "hey dont eat or live untill the job creation curve from this new tech catches back up, you'll be in demand again". So while the net effect of automation is more jobs, it still doesn't make the immediate (within a workers lifetime) impact necessarily better.

Another thing the article mentions is a 4400% increase in the number of jobs. This is not population growth, (it is only 3 generations assuming child labor), so where did those people come from? Were they more skilled workers earning good wages replaced by automation? Were they unskilled workers whose previous jobs had been automated away (ditch diggers and the like)?

In one case you have a net loss in liquidity in the hands of people, this is the net equivelant of lost jobs. In the other case you have a potential gain in liquidity. Once again, not making a case for or agains the automation, just discussing if the employment is equivelant.

To use your analogy its not like me asking if we should continue with the rugby at all. It's more like me saying "Hey guys, I know that the mechanism is different, but can we also look at the fact that 100 more teams in the cup might dilute the quality of play?"