[vijayr]

In the (very) short run, yes what you say makes sense. How does it make sense in the long run? "Business" can't exist without "the people", right? If I don't have money to buy shit then I can't be a good consumer, what are they going to sell to me then? Replace I with millions of people, then what?

[ue_]

You're quite leading onto an important point with this - businesses require wage labour, capitalism does on a large scale - in order to make sure that there is a large number of people who are able to buy products. Periods of increasing automation means that there are fewer people employed in the old jobs, so they have to be repurposed, or learn new skills. Too much of this is bad for property owners, so there is also a long-term incentive to keep automation growth at a certain level.

But that doesn't mean that people are thrown under the bus - that's a view without nuance. Governments recognise that business can only work when there is a certain degree of freedom to the people (a "double freedom" as Marx put it), and this is done mostly or even wholly for the purpose of ensuring this constant flow of capital. As such, the nuanced view is that while it is capital versus "the people" (wage labourers), to protect the status of capital, "the people" must be afforded certain freedoms, or things break down.