It's also true that higher profits generated by the new technology will lead to more investment, and this may eventually mean higher wages. But the operative word is eventually. If history is any guide, it may be decades before the fruits of a better technology are fully reflected in higher wages. There are, admittedly, some important differences between the early 19th century and the late 20th, but they are less fundamental than they may seem.
And two of mine:
Paul Krugman and I agree that as long as wages are flexible--and we agree that in the United States they are--technological change cannot destroy jobs on net. The reason: even if the demand for labor falls, wage rates can and will fall, keeping workers employed. The one exception would be very unskilled workers, some of whom would be priced out of work by the minimum wage. Krugman and I also agree that "capital using" technological change can reduce real wages for workers.
But a theoretical possibility is not the same as a fact. The important question is not whether the information revolution can reduce real wages for workers, but whether it does. This Krugman has failed to establish.