Do you have any evidence of this? When cars replaced horses, automobiles presented manufacture, repair, and refueling jobs almost immediately.
Car-related jobs did very little to replace horse-related jobs at first (number-wise). It was only after cars had been around for quite some time that Ford made them cheap enough that more people could own cars than previously owned horses that job replacement started to become meaningful.
Manufacturing brought product after product into the purchasing ability of common man that he either could never have afforded, or only afforded for the head of the household.
That's been the trend. The new jobs are in stuff that previously only the wealthy could afford, but now suddenly most people can afford due to automation. People who can predict those products going forward stand to make a great deal of money.
far as Helicopter Money, it's not so much about the money as it is circulatory pressure.
We know that's not true from decades of deflationary pressure in Japan. The truth is: you can't push on a rope. Economies can stagnate, even collapse, for lack of money supply, but it doesn't work the other way: you can't create demand for money by increasing the supply.
Pensions were long common until the private sector made them unfashionable. The gov't typically pays about 15% less than the private sector, making up for it via pensions and benefits
I used to live in Alameda County - their pension obligations were 100% of their budget, and they were far from the worst in California. It's a common story - most states have similar problems at the state level, and most major cities and counties face it to one degree or another. Pensions were under-funded for decades from a combination of assumptions of 90s stock market growth continuing forever, lifespan not increasing, and politicians not giving a shit about any problem they could kick down the road.
BTW, jobs at the federal level now typically pay more than the private sector. Aristocrats vs commoners.