If the response is to benefit people, then actions which benefit the economy at the expense of benefiting people are misaligned to our goals. It's an alignment problem and boy if we can't solve this, then I have some bad news for you regarding the next 30 years.
Is our economy aligned to the benefit of people? Are we capable of aligning it to our benefit? Do we have any obligation to people we hurt through the decisions we make?
That's not an alignment issue, because it's not clear if raising prices on everyone to support a few thousands workers is pro-worker or pre-human. You could just as easily argue (and I do) that lowering prices and freeing up man hours is pro-worker and pro-human.
It is a reality of misalignment discussions esp those involving AI. Part of that ambiguity is baked into the problem. For example, we can't be sure that AI is aligned with humanity if one of the fundamental issues.
The fact that we can't be sure that the economy is aligned with human benefit is itself a huge problem given the scope of the economy. The fact that we've normalized this is disturbing.
Having 100 people working doing something that could be automated is bad for mankind. It's a total waste. Might as well have them digging a hole then filling it back in.
The problem is that we don't allow for changing work requirements, both on an individual basis with retraining into jobs of equivalent satisfaction and compensation, but also into keeping areas which lose their industry relevant. This causes people to blame the automation.
It's nothing new, in the past workers who felt their livelihood threatened by automation flung their wooden shoes, called 'sabots', into the machines to stop them. ...Hence the word 'sabotage'.