> How many "paid positions" does Microsoft Excel replace every day? I don't know, could you tell me? I don't think that we actually can point to people working

> How many "paid positions" does Microsoft Excel replace every day? I don't know, could you tell me? I don't think that we actually can point to people working in the position of calculator who are rendered unemployed by Excel version bumps. Arguing that we'd be putting Bob Cratchet and other clerks from the 1800's out of work rings of reductio ad absurdum. MS Excel seems to lack the one-to-one correlation between a worker on a fulfillment line putting things in boxes and a robot on the same line doing the same work (and doing it more efficiently, since the 'bot custom-fits the packaging to the product). The farm and mining automation example do ring truer, and in each case we've seen large increases in productivity (as well as consolidation) while seeing people in these communities falling out of work and not being able to get back into the labor market. To pick the only mining county I can think off off the top of my head, the effect of automation continues to be felt in local economies: https://www.bestplaces.net/economy/county/kentucky/harlan https://www.bestplaces.net/economy/county/kentucky/harlan https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/coal/article44121909.html https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/coal/article44121909.htm... > You can't "strive for" automation, while at the same time essentially locking in labor costs by taxing that automation as human labor. Why not?