I did not argue that cogently.
At each "node" of the industrial revolution, lots of workers were displaced. (weavers, scriveners, printers, car mechanics). Those workers were highly paid because they were highly skilled.
Productivity made things cheaper to make, because it removed the expensive labour required to make it.
That means less well paid jobs with controlled hours. This leads to poorly paid jobs with high competition and poor hours.
Yes new highly paid jobs were created, but not for the people who were dispossessed by the previous "node".
> If machines get so productive that we don't need to work, everyone losing their jobs isn't a long-term problem
who is going to pay for them? not the people who are making the profits.
> who is going to pay for them? not the people who are making the profits.
They kinda have to. If I'm so productive at producing food that I grow enough for 2,000 people, I have to find 2,000 people to feed. Or the land sits fallow and I get nothing at all. There is a lot of wiggle room at the margins, but overall it is hard to get away with producing more stuff and warehousing it.
We'd expect to see a bunch of silly jobs where people are peeling grapes and cooling the wealthy with fronds; but the capitalists can't hoard the wealth because they can't really do anything with it.