[formulaT]

But we don't owe it to make sure that no one is ever worse off. There are people who never had jobs in the first place. If a trucker loses is job because of technological change, why is the trucker now entitled to more than the person who never had a job?

[arrrg]

My own guiding principle here is that everyone deserves a life in dignity, unemployed or employed. You are of course completely correct that we also suck at insuring that for the unemployed.

I mean, I’m more than happy to consider solutions to this problem that tackle the problem of unemployment as a whole, not just this small part we just considered. I think finding a general solution would definitely be even better and thinking about this problem (e.g. basic income) definitely often tends to consider unemployment as a whole.

[formulaT]

Existing welfare addresses the problems of unemployment. Not as well as welfare in other English speaking countries, but it still ameliorates the problem.

My position is that even with the current welfare system, technologies that increase productivity, but make some people unemployed, are still good from a utilitarian perspective. The trickle down effect (including through the existing welfare system), which benefits the entire poor population, makes up for the negative effect on the newly unemployed.

EDIT: as always, I have no problem with downvotes for my other opinions, but it's really sad to see downvotes for economic orthodoxy. If anyone reading this downvoted me, please educate yourself on mainstream economic thinking. You don't want to be remembered as an anti-vaccination advocate.