Cribbing from r/economics FAQ on automation
--------
> It's important to note that the vast majority of workers (>90%) before the industrial revolution worked in agriculture, and that this number is now less than 5%. Why did the automation of agriculture not lead to widespread, long term unemployment? This is because disruptive technologies have multiple effects. They:
* Destroy existing jobs
* Complement existing jobs (by making them more efficient)
* Create new jobs
* Reallocate the workforce to where it is most productive
Note that only one of those four effects causes long run job loss. Two of those cause job loss in general (job reallocation implies job loss in the short term, after all).
For automation to cause long run structural unemployment, the new technology needs not only to destroy jobs and create no new jobs, but it also needs to somehow prevent reallocation of workers to other sectors of the economy.
-------
The issue as I see it is not so much automation, which is inevitable. The issue is that humans are hard to retrain, unless you spend a lot of expensive human power to make the transition.
This makes it un-economical (you need to give people money, and time, and teachers, and then IF they certify, they need to qualify/compete with people who were already in the industry).
Re-training is an unsolved problem (In my opinion), and it is possible we may not want to solve it.
As the internet has shown, any communication technology is morally neutral. If you found a way to re-train huge groups of people faster than ever before, then that tool could be used to indoctrinate people faster than before as well.
EDIT: It is pretty important to note that this is the current weak spot in the over arching economic model that drives the world.
Tech advances are mathematically responsible for improving the size of the economy - they are necessary and critical for humanity.
The general answer by economics is that people move to other sectors where there is demand for them.
Unfortunately, if you cannot make that move, the system doesn't work that well.
Or worse - you make a move from being a manager to a burger flipper.
One side effect of this is an increase in inequality of wealth distribution.
So figuring out if re-training works, and if it is working at the scale needed to deal with creative disruption, is obviously a major component of future human well being.