I'm doubtful. From what I've seen it just means that those who do have full time jobs are expected to work more. Why employ two people for 20 hours a week when you can have one person for 40hrs a week? For most industries the managerial and administrative overheads are less with fewer staff who work longer hours.
> but has not really succeeded in shedding much light on where innovation comes from or what policies support it.
Deirdre N. McCloskey might have something to say about that in her tomb 'Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World'[1][2]. tl;dr her argument is that the ability to bring innovation to market, profit, and be dignified in doing so is the factor that brought about the modern world.
And besides, we only have to look at other developed nations with liveable minimum wages to see that it hasn't caused an automation revolution. Where I live, Australia, has an adult minimum full-time wage of $17.29[3] and has an unemployment rate of 5.8%[4] (for some definitions of 'unemployed').
A liveable minimum wage isn't going to cause an automation revolution. The Automation Revolution is going to be what causes the automation revolution, and for that to happen we're going to need cheap general purpose robots trickling in to the second hand market.
When a business can buy a general purpose robot for less than 5x the annual salary of a full-time employee, and it can learn new skills as easily as a human, we'll be close. It's looking like that's a way off yet.
1. http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/ 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deirdre_McCloskey 3. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-g... 4. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/mf/6202.0