I have never understood how "growth in manufacturing output was powered by semiconductors" is supposed to contradict the claim that automation is responsible fo

I have never understood how "growth in manufacturing output was powered by semiconductors" is supposed to contradict the claim that automation is responsible for job loss in manufacturing. First, the graphs for "manufacturing less computers" out form a more-or-less flat line. However, employment in "manufacturing less computers" declined precipitously. Even if we zero out the effect of computers and chips on manufacturing output, we still see constant output with precipitous decline in employment. Note that we see this even in countries that don't manufacture microchips. Automation clearly is effecting manufacturing employment in manufacturing outside of chip fabs. That's patently obvious even from the graphs purportedly used to prove the opposite. Second, the IT revolution is/was real. Most of America's largest companies are built on the back of silicon and the chips powering those market cpas were manufactured in highly automated factories. So, even setting aside (1), it's still clear that automation caused a decline in manufacturing employment. If chip fabs had required as many human workers as car plants, US manufacturing job growth would've been robust. So not only is old manufacturing automated, but growth sectors in manufacturing are also automated. So that "new industries" don't offset automation in "old industries". (Finally, as an aside, the rhetoric about this hidden fact that everyone ignored is IMO mostly bullshit storytelling. US economic growth in the last 30 years (and especially the last 10 years) was powered by semiconductors and information technology. Also, semiconductors have powered growth in the manufacturing sector. I don't think there is a single economist alive who doesn't know both of these facts, and many of the studies critiqued by the "semiconductors explain everything" crowd explicitly address these two facts...)