He's pointing out that labor has always opposed labor saving technology, despite that being the basis of our modern quality of life.
Labor saving technology does not create enough alternative jobs to employ all those that it displaced, otherwise it wouldn't be labor saving.
Instead, the surplus created by these technologies allows that society to deploy labor on less immediately necessary jobs. These jobs weren't created by the technology, they were always there, but society did not have the resources to staff them (think education, research, academia, merchants, etc.)
This dynamic has been true since pre-historic times, so you'll need some extraordinary evidence if you want us to believe this time is different.
The financial and social hierarchy you allude to is not immutable. Programming was once a low-paid, low-status job done largely by women. It's only relatively recently that it's become a lucrative, high-status masculine-coded career.
Things like Unions, Wars, etc.
What comes after new technology has always been the elite class owning them all and forcing everybody else to suffer until something managed the distribution of resources slightly better (War forces that).