> Increasing productivity never lays people off, unless the people were originally being unproductive. This is either trivial or underdetermined. It depends on

> Increasing productivity never lays people off, unless the people were originally being unproductive. This is either trivial or underdetermined. It depends on how you define "unproductive": - If you define "unproductive" as "produces at a lesser rate than the new, increased productivity level" then it's just a tautology. - If your definition of "unproductive" is not relative to the new rate, then you have to stipulate a reasonable definition of "productivity" and show that it was not being met prior to the automation. You haven't done this. It might turn out that the second bullet is easy enough to do in the domain you're talking about. But it's worth using language precisely if you're going to tell people that they have a "dumb understanding" of whatever you're discussing.