Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self-checkout at supermarkets does 90% of the work. The 10% of work remaining is done by a human supervising the self-checkout stations. And same will happen to development. Lots of tasks will be automated and less people will be needed as a result.
Self-checkout isn't a great example since it's mainly just shifting the work from one human (the employee) to another (the customer), rather than true automation. As a side note, we were told decades ago that visual programming would similarly displace developers; however, I'm doing perfectly fine
It may not be true automation, but it's very effective, and it's something we're seeing not only at the grocery store. What used to involve calling a person up and asking for services is now done through web portals... taking a few minutes of the person's time.
The real issue in this degradation of customer service is usually not the time cost but the fact that, while it doesn't change the amount of random human error that occurs, it shifts the penalties onto the users... if your travel agent screws up, you get a refund... if you screw up (in something that used to be someone else's job) you're told to eat the costs.
Thing is, the replacement of a process when an ersatz alternative may not be "true automation" but it doesn't need to be in order to work. And job destruction across an industry isn't 0/1. There are still jobs in car factories in Detroit, just far fewer of them. There will still be jobs for truck drivers in 2040, but there probably won't be nearly as many. Employers will still need programmers; they might not need the same number of us. It only takes a dip of a few percent in job supply to cause wages and working conditions to crater (that's inelasticity), and even this says nothing about the ripple effects and systemic calamities (up to and including the possibility of economic depressions that last decades) that occur when large numbers of working people lose substantial income.