I think this is correct. However, one aspect not yet covered in the media as much is that if wealth is concentrated and dispossessed from labour classes, there will be a corresponding decline or collapse in many areas of the economy.
If an entire generation of labour workers are tipped out of employment, who will purchase FMCG? Sure, the market for premium/elite products could increase but I do not think this will compensate nearly enough for the lack of volume.
It is in the interest of capital owners to ensure that significant markets remain so that industries that rely on economy of scale can continue to operate. Basic income doesn't help this situation.
But yes, it would be best if we could find ways to help laborers adapt to new automation and advance technology in a socially responsible way. Not that I have any great ideas for how that would work.
At this moment in history, with so much automation happening, and also so much inequality, we should keep fighting for it to happen in a good way.
But there's no guarantee anywhere that this is how it "has" to work out, and as things accelerate there's a lot of evidence to say it's not going to be that way for working class people in highly developed economies. (It seems to be ramping up developing economies much the same as it worked for us.) If you don't have a paycheck, are you really benefitting from the "overall economy"?
"The relatively steady rate of employment in etching and engraving fits into the optimist’s narrative of what will happen when machines take over work. Unlike the pessimist’s narrative, which points out the instances in which companies view automation as an opportunity to cut labor costs, the sunny view assumes that there’s always more work to do. If workers aren’t bogged down with repetitive, boring tasks, they’ll be able to do more work or focus on new business segments.
“A lot of the automation has just made it faster, not necessarily taken away jobs,” says Dalton. “For us, I would say it’s increased our capability to hire more employees, because we can do more work.”
Coincidentally, the whole magic robots stealing jobs meme neatly exculpates austerity and outsourcing.
Things are more complex than that. Whether labor gains or loses depends it productivity saves labor faster or slower than lower prices increase consumption.
For a more modern analogy, AWS enables one engineer to deploy machines at let's say 100 times the speed of an engineer doing it all manually. If you business scales with the number of deployed machines, each additional engineer adds significant value to your business until you reach a point where adding another engineer does not justify the salary you would pay her.
The issue then is now training engineers to use AWS. Your business could justify bearing this cost if the cost of training does not outweigh the additional value.
Thriftwy raises an interesting point, speculatively, but there's little bias to be found in supply logistics or assembly of parts.
Marginally touched upon in the article was the displacement of lower-class workers. Is expansion of automation going to lead humanity toward dispossession of low-income workers, or will universal welfare become the result of outmoded jobs?
I don't think Asimov's "Aurorans,"--elite-yet-few humans supported by legions of robotic servants--is possible, but it's a thing.