You're talking past the point. The ultimate selling point which the OP was emphasizing is an increase in jobs. Investing in automation, which is literally how many companies used the freed up tax reserves, is a net decrease in labor demand and therefore a net decrease in jobs, so the argument that this is increasing labor demand is BS.
And yes, creating 50 jobs that automate away 1000 jobs is a net loss of 950 jobs. Even if those 50 happen to be in tech or other industries that you benefit from.
> creating 50 jobs that automate away 1000 jobs is a net loss of 950 jobs
Keeping 950 jobs that are technologically uncompetitive is a good way to create a crisis down the road. Let's not confuse the investment and automation debates.
It has always been the case, throughout human history, that advances in technology have reduced the need for some jobs. Given that, the goal should not be to prevent it from happening; you can't in any sustainable way. Rather, making sure that there are other things for the people that would have held those jobs should be the goal. New jobs, reducing the need for jobs altogether, or something else.
But standing in the way of progress telling it to stop is never going to be a realistic solution.
No one is saying that. The evidence shows that companies are spending on automation, so the argument that tax cuts for corporations are going to lead to an increase in labor are dubious at best and utter nonsense at worst.
The best way to stimulate labor is to stimulate demand, aka giving money to the people who will spend. It's sickening to see people pretend that massive corporate tax cuts and middle-wage tax hikes are going to do anything other than reduce labor demand.
And yes, creating 50 jobs that automate away 1000 jobs is a net loss of 950 jobs. Even if those 50 happen to be in tech or other industries that you benefit from.