Hi Elli, I did enjoy the article, and I agree that there need to be good ways to address this form of argument. My main thought, probably not well expressed,

Hi Elli, I did enjoy the article, and I agree that there need to be good ways to address this form of argument. My main thought, probably not well expressed, was that I wish it had been more emphasized how it's not the most terrible thing in the world for someone to have to pivot their career, and it's getting easier for people to do so every day. However, it's going to get harder with each passing day to "prove" specific forms of technology[1] generate Y jobs for reasons that you expressed in the article. For that reason, I think it's likely better to try to sidestep the argument altogether and explain why it's asking the wrong question instead of first providing a direct answer to the question/argument. I did re-read the article after making the first comment, and I admit I had concentrated on the first half of it a little more than the second half where you do address some of my concerns. [1] Technology in general isn't under attack here, it's generally only technology created in the last X years. X generally being the number of years since the target audience for the argument entered the workforce.