> The point of automation is it would expand the overall economic pie so that those more skilled higher paying jobs would be necessary to do something that would not happen otherwise
No, the point -- i.e., why firms adopt automation -- is to cut the production costs of the firms adopting automation.
The hoped for social benefit -- hoped for largely by people who aren't the ones adopting automation -- is of an expanded overall economy that not only provides aggregate growth but also distributes that growth in a nice manner so that not only does the mean income improve, but the total share of population productively employed stays the same or improves, and everyone does better.
There's no real reason to expect that is either likely as the near-term result of automation, or necessary as its long-term result as a result of pure market forces. And it is certainly not the point of automation from the point of view of the firms doing the automation.
No, the point -- i.e., why firms adopt automation -- is to cut the production costs of the firms adopting automation.
The hoped for social benefit -- hoped for largely by people who aren't the ones adopting automation -- is of an expanded overall economy that not only provides aggregate growth but also distributes that growth in a nice manner so that not only does the mean income improve, but the total share of population productively employed stays the same or improves, and everyone does better.
There's no real reason to expect that is either likely as the near-term result of automation, or necessary as its long-term result as a result of pure market forces. And it is certainly not the point of automation from the point of view of the firms doing the automation.