They absolutely are. As with all capital investment, the automation never eliminates the workforce, it just forces the workers into different positions and areas of responsibilities.

John Henry is an excellent example, because it's their claim that basically the industry would die without the miner. But that's not the case. A steam powered hammer drill killed a man because he could barely keep up with it. But what do we have now? This gigantic monster. People stopped hitting nails and instead took up over-seeing the machine, or doing other work in the industry until they retired. This includes training. If it was really so bad that a worker couldn't adapt, they could be fired, but would most likely just go and work at a smaller company that couldn't afford the new capital investment yet. Like a smaller rail road company that doesn't have the money for steam drills.

The working class who is good at their jobs are going to be just fine. They are still competitive and will get improved productivity.

But what of the bureaucrats? Well, if they can't manage any organizational structure, they are gone forever. They don't actually have a transferable skill if they are a bureaucrat that isn't actually good at bureaucracy.

That's the trick here. Even the bureaucrats, who are good at bureaucracy, will continue to exist and can transition out into other organizational logistical efforts. What you are seeing are the useless people who won't adapt, refuse to. They are the people who are losing their jobs and careers and that's a good thing.

And I don't just mean a subjective good from my political stance, but an objective good for everyone. They cost consumers money, they cost businesses money, and they are normally a problem in the work place. You should be firing these people. Twitter fired 85% of it's staff and suffered minimal disruption. Among my employers and my friends employers. Firing 10% of the staff could collapse the company. That was all bloat.

The bloaters are worried the AI will call them out.