It's important to say it as it is. People tend to treat it as a 'natural' thing, instead of a business decision to cut costs.
Somewhere down the road some kind of intervention will be necessary, as too much will be on the line.
Illness in herd animals is healthy for wolves by making them easier to kill without injury.
The industrial revolution saw major growing pains and destitution but raised standards of living greatly.
The conflict with the goal of people living well is that we don't want to take wealth from those that have it and give it to those that don't, without making the ones that don't have wealth "earn it".
Otherwise, there is nothing stopping societies from gathering up all the extra profits from automation, and using it to invest in education, healthcare, reducing number of work hours, increasing vacation time, i.e. living well. But we would rather not have that.
In a 'healthy' society, automation should be employed to make humans work less hours and with less risks. Somehow many people think this statement is absurd.
The true issue is adaptability or lack of it in an economy. The replaced should be doing something actually useful but that process is less than straightforward.