Technological Unemployment exists in aggregate

I am arguing that technological unemployment does not exist in aggregate. In other words, technological innovation has no negative net effect on employment. History shows us that this is just not so. The belief in technological unemployment is known as the Luddite fallacy. This fallacy has been disproved many times over as the increase in supply increases buying power significantly. This enables new businesses to start up because business is less concerned with allocating too many resources to the necessities, and they can instead invest in the luxuries. For example, when the combine was invented, it cut farm employment drastically. Those jobs shifted to manufacturing. In this case, people were less concerned with sustenance because of the increase in the supply of food and the corresponding decrease in cost, ceteris paribus. Therefore, people could invest their resources into the manufacture of luxury items (by luxury I simply mean that they are not necessary to survive). It is a basic marginal utility problem. The first few goods always provide the greatest marginal utility. However, after so many goods are consumed, the consumption of another good provides more marginal utility. Therefore, we can conclude that by producing more of what we absolutely need, eventually we will move to stuff that we just want, and we can further move to the stuff that means nothing but we desire it anyway (self actualization and aesthetics if you have studied Maslow and his hierarchy of needs). Furthermore, Adam Smith and Milton Friedman have both stated that the best way to produce is the cheapest way to produce. If mechanization lowers the marginal cost of production, then it is the best economic choice for them to utilize the cheaper method. This benefit is applied to the business itself and the economy as a whole. Now, this view was initially used to discount mercantilism and promote free trade. Interestingly enough, wanting to innovate to seek methods of cheaper and more diverse production is a parallel to the free trade-protectionism argument. I would like to bring up how after mercantilism was abolished, the economies of many nations around the world grew significantly. This is because of the comparative advantage of producing goods elsewhere. Thus, goods become cheaper as the supply of them increases, and people become less concerned with the sustenance that they become more concerned with matters like psychology and philosophy. Yes, I am saying that mechanization might actually make psychology and philosophy more popular and more marketable. Before I go, I would like to bring up another doom-and-gloom economic view that was very similar to this one that did not come to light. This was the view of Thomas Malthus and how he believed that the population of the world was growing too quickly for the amount of food capable of being produced. This was back in the 1800s, and this has clearly not come to be true. My point in arguing the Malthus point is to show that mankind is adaptable and flexible. They can change to the situation to make themselves better off. Malthus feared population growth. People today fear technological unemployment. Malthus was wrong, so to will the people of today regarding this concept.