[sly671]

If you would read the ENTIRE article, you could see the point. He's showing how the government will try to limit the moving of jobs to other nations but not to automation. It's completely right to assume jobs WILL come and go so the interventions of the government are futile. Would you rather see your job go overseas with a possibility(even if it is remote) of it coming back or would you like to lose it to a machine with no possibility of you getting your job back? Or do you want to keep your job for a little longer until it may be automated and pay more for all the products produced?

[lelio]

Would you rather see your job go overseas with a possibility(even if it is remote) of it coming back or would you like to lose it to a machine with no possibility of you getting your job back?

You're missing out on the 2nd part what's happened over the past 100 years: you loose your job to a machine but now you're the one running the machine, or creating a new one, or fixing it, or something else. Its "creative destruction" of jobs.

That's the main problem with offshoring just because they have cheap labor: there's no "construction" in there.