The thesis of this article seems to be that robots won't eliminate jobs, but it really doesn't adduce evidence to support that: > a recent paper ... put forwar

The thesis of this article seems to be that robots won't eliminate jobs, but it really doesn't adduce evidence to support that: > a recent paper ... put forward a “new view” of robots, saying that “the direct effect of automation may be to increase employment at the firm level, not to reduce it.” "At the firm level" is quite the caveat! If a company can produce two widgets per worker instead of one by adding robots, it'll succeed and grow as a result - at the expense of its competitors. But if every widget maker adds those robots, and there's no more demand for widgets than before, a lot of factory staff will be out of work. They touch on a related point near the end: > Mr Aghion and his colleagues add that even if automation boosts employment at the level of the firm or industry, the effect across the economy as a whole is less clear. In theory robot-adopting companies could be so successful that they drive competitors out of business, reducing the total number of available jobs. ...but it seems to me like a major problem with the whole framing of the article, not just a "by the way".