I mean yes, to some extent you are right. People are generally resilient and society as a whole will undoubtedly bounce back over the course of the billions of

I mean yes, to some extent you are right. People are generally resilient and society as a whole will undoubtedly bounce back over the course of the billions of people on the planet. With that said, there's nothing to say that we can't help manage the transition for the massive numbers of people who ARE expected to be effected by this. Consider the cost of retraining. Who would support going back to school? As a society we have the ability and resources to ensure people who do have their livelihoods automated aren't rendered homeless by a sudden unexpected loss of income. We see the job losses on the horizon and we can plan ahead for it. We can yawn "because tractors" or we can start building out the social safety net now so we get out ahead of it. New jobs will undoubtedly arise to take the role of those jobs being automated now, but the change isn't necessarily immediate, 1:1, or optimally geo-located. We need schemes in place in order to support the transition period. Retraining, mobility, nutrition, shelter could all need stop-gaps to prevent catastrophe for some populations. Much of Monica's research is finding that women, minorities and populations which are currently "at-risk" already are expected to be disproportionately affected by the coming wave of automation. Lower education & working poor are going to get hit badly by this. Consider for example Detroit, Consider "coal country" - the it's not as easy to say "because tractors" to the real people who are suddenly out of work in a city or state where the entire economy just dried up. Maybe they were already living paycheck-to-paycheck, maybe their nest-egg investment in their house suddenly became worthless because nobody needs to move to town anymore. Maybe after 30 or 40 years at the plant they're close to retirement, but have deeply specialized in something where they can't generalize their existing skills. And so on. "because tractors" is very little comfort to them. "People" will be fine in general, "these people" quite specifically will be devastated. Maybe there's a role for legislation that requires companies reducing workforce to support those former employees for longer?