A really surprising thing here is that their analysis is also based on an somewhat unrealistically negative datum. They're using the labor force participation r

A really surprising thing here is that their analysis is also based on an somewhat unrealistically negative datum. They're using the labor force participation rate. The labor force participation rate counts people who are happy to not work, which is not a problem - and probably to be expected as the total number of upper and rich class individuals increases over time as a share of society. A much more useful measurement is the U6 unemployment rate. The U6 counts people who are involuntary part time (want full time work but can't find it) as well as those who want to work but who are no longer actively searching as part of the number. And the really surprising thing is that even the U6 is reaching record lows [1]. If the current trends with unemployment continue we'll have the lowest 'real' unemployment rate since the U6 started being recorded, 24 years ago. The one 'zinger' I'd add here is that even the U6 does not account for underemployment. Many of the jobs created in recent years have been McJobs and if somebody has e.g. a STEM degree and is serving coffee, then they should probably count as unemployed. Perhaps it's time for a U7. On the other hand, I do not think this would meaningfully change the numbers. I still do think automation is going to be disruptive since I simply don't see how transportation automation, which is an enormous industry that offers relatively good wages, can end up otherwise. But I've also become less cynical since we've undoubtedly been sending productivity up, and even with the outsourcing of desirable jobs or bringing in workers to fill those roles domestically for lower wages, our economy seems to be doing phenomenally. And that's something I certainly would not have predicted. [1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/u6rate https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/u6rate