https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7pNJ9aQxRMrWAnkmf/thank-you-...
That article is essentially refuting itself.
The "good case" was typesetting. The introduction of the Linotype enormously increased the volume of material printed and created more printing and typesetting jobs.
The "medium case" was bottle making. Hand-made bottles were expensive, taking a trained group of about five people to blow a bottle. Machine-made made bottles were cheaper, and required far fewer people to make. Cheaper bottles increased demand for bottles, but, overall, employment in bottle making was about the same or less. Also, much of the labor was now low-skill machine tending - putting in sand, taking out bottles. Only a small number of bottle-making machine experts were needed.
The "bad case" was the stone planer. Brick buildings used to have stone lintels over doors and windows, and there was an industry of big guys with chisels hammering out those things. The stone planer was simply a big steam powered planer for stone slabs. This required far fewer people. But it didn't increase demand for stone lintels, because they were a minor building component, not significant enough in cost to increase demand for brick buildings.
I'm going to ask for a cite. Automation would have led to a resurgence of the textile industry in the US if that were the case.
Most of the textile mill towns are gone, never to return.
It's the canonical story in the history of automation and jobs. You're one of today's lucky ten thousand :-)