I was reading the oxford paper, and that does not seem to be the conclusion that their team reached, and cited work from several other groups that had similar findings.
One of the cornerstones of the "New jobs" argument is that demand for highly educated and skilled labor will increase, which they specifically address as not consistent with empirical findings of their peers:
as computerisation enters more cognitive domains this will become increasingly challenging
(Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2011). Recent empirical findings
are therefore particularly concerning. For example, Beaudry,
et al. (2013) document a decline in the demand for skill over the past decade, even as the supply of workers with
higher education has continued to grow. They show that high-
skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder, taking on jobs traditionally performed by low-skilled workers, pushing low-skilled workers even further down
the occupational ladder and, to some extent, even out of the l
abour force. This raises questions about: (a) the ability of human labour to win the race against
technology by means of education; and (b) the potential extent of technological unemployment, as an increasing pace of technological progress will cause higher job turnover, resulting in a higher natural rate of unemployment (Lucas and Prescott, 1974; Davis and Haltiwanger, 1992; Pissarides, 2000). While the present study is limited to examining the destruction effect of technology, it nevertheless provides a useful indication of the job growth required to counter-balance the jobs at risk over the next decades.
So, is your attestation that this previous historical trend will hold actually well founded, or is it just a belief?