I think his assumption is that since it's happened with steam engines and industrial looms, it'll happen again with robots and the internet? Not really, he pre

I think his assumption is that since it's happened with steam engines and industrial looms, it'll happen again with robots and the internet? Not really, he presents a general argument (though he uses a specific example). Basically: Automation --> Efficiency --> More Income Somewhere --> More Jobs You can argue that he is wrong, but he isn't relying solely on history to prove his point, he has a model in mind.