I think the argument is that technology "should have" led to a massive deflation as the price of a bunch of goods and services crashed due to automation; but, instead, that value has been being captured by a combination of people "at the top" simply making more money (hiring fewer people but keeping prices the same somehow, maybe due to supply chain oligopolies or intellectual property barriers <- this is all ancillary to the point, btw, and yet the point doesn't feel complete or honest if I don't add this first effect) and the levers that can be used to cause inflation (which I think are what people are really talking about here when they say "inflation": not the measurable result, but a specific set of deliberate causes of an upward force--whether or not the sum of all forces, in total, is up--on that measurement), the latter of which then leading to an "on average" leveling of the inflation measure where the price of things that can be automated goes down slightly (instead of dramatically) while the price of things that can't be automated goes up.