No, he said two-earner households, will become one-earner households, he didn't mention* anyone will become rich**, just that one person from the household will become unemployed.

(* at least he didn't mention it in the cited fragment. I didn't read the entire thing, my time is too precious, I must waste it on writing comments instead of reading sources.) (** Of course he will become richer, but that's the obvious part of the idea and doesn't need to be mentioned)