Maybe, my point is that isn't not a 'win' for the laborer like you seem to suggest, that maybe 50% of the people losing their jobs get to work better jobs. The people losing their jobs that are lucky enough to not be laid off are more likely be relegated to lower paying and lower skill inspection jobs rather than the higher skilled machine maintenance/development.

IMO, the most likely outcome of your scenario is: 19/100 of the workers become visual inspection team, (maybe) 1/100 of the workers becomes a manager for visual inspection team, 5 external machine specialists get hired, 80/100 of the workers get laid off and 75/80 of those will continue same line of work for even less pay (supply/demand) and 5/80 will burn through any personal savings/credit to retrain themselves with the hopes of becoming one of the '5 external machine specialists' hired somewhere else.

These numbers are definitely made up by me based on my own world view. From the original 100 laborers, 94/100 of the original people are worse off than before and in exchange we have 5 (maybe 6) new skilled positions.

I'm not against automation or productivity or higher skilled work, I'm personally invested in all three, I just think that if we aren't aware of all the consequences that we are likely to be blind-sided by a resurgence of Luddite riots.