In Tesla's model, you buy a Tesla, and allow it to operate as a robotaxi when you're not using it. It generates income passively for you. The technology has introduced automation that might have displaced your job responsibility but not your means of generating income.
In Waymo's model, you have completely displaced both the job itself and the means of generating income. This is a strict lose-lose for everyone except Google, who reaps the profit.
Automated telephone switching fits the latter pattern. The job and the income went away. So the question is valid, would you prefer automated telephone switching was never deployed?
Putting aside the fact that Tesla's robotaxi model will likely never actually ship, I don't see how you're not displacing a driver's job by operating your car as a robotaxi instead of letting it sit idle.
If the vast majority of the robotaxies are owned by normal households that have 1 or 2 of them, then that's the people owning the means of automated production. Ideally it would be the people that already own taxis getting them upgraded, but it's a lot better than corporate fleets for putting the revenue into the pockets of people.
In Tesla's model, you buy a Tesla, and allow it to operate as a robotaxi when you're not using it. It generates income passively for you. The technology has introduced automation that might have displaced your job responsibility but not your means of generating income.
In Waymo's model, you have completely displaced both the job itself and the means of generating income. This is a strict lose-lose for everyone except Google, who reaps the profit.