> it would cause someone to lose a job they didn’t know was under threat

Under this guidance, wouldn't almost every technological advancement then qualify as bad? i.e. typewriter repair, etc.

To address the second part of the sentence you quoted, in this generic “doesn’t progress mean all jobs are impermanent?” sense, don’t people generically understand their jobs are generically under threat at some baseline level from progress? It doesn’t absolve you from the harm of being specifically responsible.

I mean everyone has to die someday but that doesn’t excuse murder.