Displacement of labour does not typically lead to rapid re-deployment in existing fields, it tends to depress wages, and consumption. Absent a boom in construction and civil engineering, or some new approach to state funded interventions in public utility function, what exactly do the economists think will be the place all these new jobs come from?

Displaced knowledge workers aren't going to restart American manufacturing. The skillset is different. The relocation burdens are immense. So, this idea of mobile workforce and re-engagement, it's depression-era thinking. I don't think we'll see that, I think we'll see Detroit, but kinda worse. Maybe more like rustbelt: people in place, stuck in over valued unsellable homes, subsisting into disease.

A 10% drop in employment across the knowledge sector won't be met by a 10% rise in vacancy rates for knowledge sector workers.

And, given the drop in salaries, and the drop in consumption, Who exactly do the economists think will be buying those goods and services? If you don't pay people how do they buy things?

So I get the aggregates, but I ask: how are the aggregates being formed?