In terms of net-good vs net-bad, I would consider it to be enormously net-bad to simply cast these people aside, and not help them at all.
Also, interested if you took a look at that chapter I posted. Interested in your take.
I am saying that we MUST, absolutely MUST find some way to assist those who are displaced because of automation. Those people still need to support families, pay rent, buy food. If we decide that "increased productivity" (read: increased profits for owners) is more important, then we need some way for these people to be able to remain in their homes. If we don't, then we might as well shoot them all as soon as their job becomes obsolete. It would be less cruel.
'profits for owners'... yawn...
'shoot them the second their job is obsolete'... your inner communist is showing ;)
Pragmatically, these kinds of questions have to be weighed by net-harm vs net-good. By stifling innovation or subsidizing bad ways of doing things you are choosing a (relatively) small amount of good (preserving some obsolete job so that people don't lose those specific jobs) over the much larger net-good that increase economic output provides for the entire system.
If you have an open mind; I would suggest reading the chapter "The Curse of Machinery" from Henry Hazlitt's 1946 work "Economics in One Lesson". It can be read here for free: https://fee.org/articles/the-curse-of-machinery/
Would never suggest this will change your world, but it might help you understand the opposing POV.