I suspect that IT eliminates jobs that didn't exist to begin with, and that's where the paradox is explained. A company that previously wouldn't have been cost

I suspect that IT eliminates jobs that didn't exist to begin with, and that's where the paradox is explained. A company that previously wouldn't have been cost effective to operate, now is cost effective because the jobs needed to operate it are eliminated and that makes its operation possible. We can't easily measure productivity gains in companies that didn't otherwise exist (small businesses that can't afford many mathematicians). And for big companies that could afford hundreds of bookkeepers, the gains would drag for years or decades behind since they would transition very slowly. I'm not an expert though, so maybe I actually just don't understand the issue...