That's a good attitude, and I think we should decide our public policy with that assumption, but I have a hard time believing it is actually true.
Just as an example, a lights out factory is still going to need some people for maintenance but there is hardly any sort of "law of robotics" that suggests every manufacturing job lost is a maintenance job gained. Automation does replace people, in an ideal world the economy is strengthened by that automation and those people can therefore easily find new better jobs, but is there any evidence that is actually the case? I think the Rust Belt is evidence that it is not.
Just as an example, a lights out factory is still going to need some people for maintenance but there is hardly any sort of "law of robotics" that suggests every manufacturing job lost is a maintenance job gained. Automation does replace people, in an ideal world the economy is strengthened by that automation and those people can therefore easily find new better jobs, but is there any evidence that is actually the case? I think the Rust Belt is evidence that it is not.