But I don't think that is necessarily true nor that things would follow suit if we think like that.

I mean, we employ much more people today than in the industrial revolution. Yet, people are paid significantly more, child labor has been abolished, all that working 8-9h a day instead of 14-18 which was common. We are not in a cooperative environment, when it comes to salaries. Companies are legally obligated to show gains to their investors, and if they can cut salaries and keep the profits they will do so. We are in a competitive game against employer, where the balance is found when both parties compromise. But make no mistake, as soon as the working force stop fight for better working conditions, it will not stay the same, only degrade.

Don't read that in a personal way. We are in no way personally against the employer, but the employer as an authority figure. The balance is not found through cooperation but rather through clash of professional interests.

No, it would be good, because it would mean that they were more efficiently utilizing their current workforce, probably through technological advancement that should ultimately benefit the entire industry. Technology is almost entirely driven through higher labor costs and dictating better conditions for employees. The benefits of technology improvements are also not zero-sum (equal to their costs to develop or maintain), and are redistributed through those higher salaries and through taxes.

If you end up unemployed at that wage level because your skill level has not made the new cut, there are other things you can do. Wanting to program but not being able to find somebody who wants you to program at the minimum wage is no more tragic than wanting to program but not being able to pay your rent doing it.