"scale existing labor rather than invest in new labor, and thus increasing the number of people with no income, sounds like movement in the exact opposite direc

"scale existing labor rather than invest in new labor, and thus increasing the number of people with no income, sounds like movement in the exact opposite direction." Sorry, this was never suggested? "Scaling" existing labour is the same as investing in new labor, is it not? Or do you mean new "types" of labour? Either way, most new productivity boosters allow you to do more with the same labour force. Ideally. So you let the labour force collectively bargain higher wages so the company is forced to invest in new technology (exp(n) boost) to scale their operations instead of increasing the size of the workforce (n boost).