> With technological progress worker roles are eliminated, but the idea is that the market has demand for new currently non-existent things and as the progress enables those things to come into existence creating new jobs as it goes.
The author is arguing that this isn't always the case. You can't take it as an axiom that the market will always have need for employing everyone.
For example, as automation becomes more sophisticated, the intelligence needed to use or modulate that automation may increase. As that base requirement rises, more people may become structurally unemployable. In the limit, if there is little that humans can do better than computers, there is little need to employ many humans.
Why do people have to be employed at all? If computers/robots become as good (I don't see this in close future), people will just use them to produce what they need and they will not need money.
The author is arguing that this isn't always the case. You can't take it as an axiom that the market will always have need for employing everyone.
For example, as automation becomes more sophisticated, the intelligence needed to use or modulate that automation may increase. As that base requirement rises, more people may become structurally unemployable. In the limit, if there is little that humans can do better than computers, there is little need to employ many humans.