Adds another dimension to the discussion. Also, it moves the job numbers to incidental from the primary focus.
If in fact we have lost 10% of the existing jobs per year (then met and surpassed that number in new creations on positive years, with a net positive number), why is the current annual 10% loss (average) such a news item? Why not last year, why not from 92 to 2000? In fact, the last time it was a "catastrophic calamity" (as reported in the nightly news) was during president Reagan's terms.
I tend to agree with the core concept, that the pressure of job loss over the 225 years of this country is what has led to continual new innovations and subsequent economic strides never before seen.
I believe this is a major contribution to the fact that the US populace lives in more comfort, and better health than the reminder of the planet, often quite striking in level of comfort and leisure time.