The post implies that the authors' paper has received limited attention from the economic establishment due to its heterodox conclusion, but elides any supposition as to why its heterodoxy should be so controversial. Why should it be?
It's in a shit journal, so that's a start. I think part of it is that he's strawmaning here. The fear of automation isn't quite that it's immediate, it's more about the ability of machines to erode away economic opportunity of communities. People haven't been saying jobs are gone, just that eventually they will be soon(ish). Arguing that jobs aren't gone yet isn't helpful.
It's also incredibly difficult to read. I studied this and find it confusing - I can only imagine what a journalist would be able to take away from it.
