Basically, this argument is "yes the rich get richer, but the poor also appear better off so it's actually a good thing." Of course, it's confusing a correlation with a causation.
The reason the poor are better off isn't because the rich got richer -- it is because society stepped in, insisted on pro-social policies to lift up the poor like public schools, minimum wage, social safety nets, worker rights, equal protection under the law, and all manner of things.
The Luddites have over and over again been proved right by history. When machines take over, the machine owners benefit and the workers are hurt. When the workers are being crushed under heel, they are more likely to show solidarity and form social movements that force society to give back more, and thus they are lifted up. The idea that the automation itself is CAUSING that lifting up is a fallacy of broken windows.
It's flatly obnoxious that anyone is claiming that the rich are the reason the workers are better off when really the WORKERS are why the workers are better off and the rich are, at best, neutral bystanders except when they directly block the path of progress.
The argument in favor of the creative destruction of capitalism is used to thought-kill anyone advocating for social reform. Workers speak out that they are being hurt by a new technology and need support and instead of hearing the pain and considering what support would be fair, they're instead painted as being anti-progress and told they should just lay down and get run over because the overall economy will still be fine in the end (and who cares if a few people are flattened in the process).