The difference is that those improvements where matched with an unprecedented growth of a relatively wealthy middle class that opened up for the creation of a service sector to take all the laid off workers. There doesn't seem to be any such new sectors being created this time around.
At the end of the day I too am reasonably optimistic, but your comparison the the events of the 19th century are too simplistic.
Those improvements were the cause of the unprecedented growth of a relatively wealthy middle class.
Today? Tea shops, bubble teas. Gourmet kebabs made from organically grown meat. Breakfast bars with 150 varieties of breakfast to choose from and combine in one tasty bowl with hand squeezed udder milk. Weekend breaks in scenic spots with cable cars and a robot serving you breakfast. Local organic wild vegetables cooked in various ways.
Each one of these is true today, employs orders upon orders of mechanization and automation to get the job done, yet exist and are mainstream.
Yet they require human interaction at some critical parts, be it construction, testing, maintenance, on-going quality control, or increase in scope of function.
The comparison with luddites in the 19th century was not simplistic, it was spot-on: the luddites didn't realize the possible growth of the non-land-owning and non-hereditary base of power which, at that time, was sparse and dependent on the favour of classes above.
Those improvements were the cause of the unprecedented growth of a relatively wealthy middle class.
Absolutely.
the luddites didn't realize the possible growth of the non-land-owning and non-hereditary base of power which, at that time, was sparse and dependent on the favour of classes above.
Again, absolutely agree. However I disagree that we can necessarily extrapolate anything useful from that fact. I just don't see it as a given that we'll see the same level of job growth coming out of this bout of "creative destruction" over the next 50 years. As you pointed out even our leisure activities are requiring less and less workers even as their variety might be growing. We're going to have to find a fundamentally new source of employment or the numbers just don't balance out.
But as I said, I'm an optimist at heart and I think we'll be fine, but I also suspect the we have to fundamentally rethink things like the meaning of "full employment" and the nature of the 40 hour work week.
Bear in mind that the definition of "middle class" has changed.
Back then, all business owners were deemed "middle class", including people who own or manage large businesses. The term "upper class" was reserved for nobles and other hereditary landowners.
Nowadays, large business owners are synonymous with "upper class". Nobody would call someone like Warren Buffett or Sumner Redstone "middle class" nowadays, but that term would've been applied to them in the 19th century.
Despite a 300% increase, and the most mind-bending increase in automation and productivity until then, there are still enough jobs to go around.