This automation argument applies to everything in the US, and the world.
Previously in the history of the world, we had to do things with our own hands, or use manual tools that used our hands. (Shovels, spades, rakes,...)
Then we migrated to machines that we could sit in or stand in, that could greatly magnify our strength (vehicles, trains, gas powered stuffs).
Now, we entered a realm back in the '60s with powerful automation via computers. And it's only gotten more powerful, smaller, and cheaper. But yet, computers have always been bad for many types of manual jobs because of fuzziness.
And now, our computers are dirt cheap and damn fast. And they can handle fuzziness and broad input. And they are replacing jobs rather quickly. But so what? Whom does this make money for? Well, people who can afford the means of production. And that answer takes us back to a treatise that was written back in the late 1800's: The Communist Manifesto.
But wait a moment... Communism fails because people seek "fair" compensation. For example, a doctor _should_ get paid more than a burger flipper, right? It seems logical that the more work you put into attaining the position should be relevant to the pay of that position. But what happens when those screws are turned, and you now compete with auto-doc or auto-flipper? You end up with lowering wages. Most of the times, those wages get lowered directly to 0.
But we then hear the old saying: When the buggy whip manufacturers died out, it opened up automotive manufacturing. Well, yes. When a segment closes, another opens, but usually the segment is smaller. For example, when a factory is mostly laid off due to automation, the few that are kept are the ones that can program and debug software and hardware. And they then are also 'encouraged' to work harder. Then this harder is the new average.
And these new employees are doing the work of 2-3 people, because it is what is expected of them to keep their job. And then automation takes over even these people, because automation can do the job of 10 people (or more!) with low error rates. But this is a look at an individual.
Now, what happens nationally? Well, we see higher numbers of unemployed and subsidized users (food stamps, WIC, housing, other means tested benefits). But why? Because automation does work, and well. But it leads to the ones whom can afford it more money, and workers without. But is Communism the answer? Maybe... Or perhaps a post-capitalism answer is needed; one that blends all of the needs of citizens and some of the wants, whilst not ignoring that those whom work harder/smarter should also be compensated for their hard work.
And of course, we've heard about the the Canadian program of Mincome, as well as Switzerland's possible venture into this territory. Is this a solution? I believe so, even as a simple humanitarian solution of compassion for fellow man.