It sounds like you'd prefer that rote labor not be automated. Should the potential for a post-scarcity society be abandoned because it costs a few jobs in the short term?
In order to live and avoid starvation, people require a minimum amount of income. There are two things they can use to produce income: work and assets (i.e. house renting).
As automation continues to elevate the standard of employable "work", there will be a lot of people that don't have the required education to be employable, nor sufficient savings to get an education, nor enough assets to generate sustainable living from them.
I'm all for the benefits of automation, but we should have a solution for the above scenario before saying it will be all roses and sunny days. What do we do with these people? Are we willing to get them to an upper level of knowledge via free education supported by higher taxation? Are we going to guarantee minimum income levels or a minimum set of assets to every person to be able to sustain themselves while being educated?
Those are difficult questions, and in a changing world where it's not enough to want to work in order to find a job, answers are needed...
As countries get richer there is more and more affordable education. In other words, higher job productivity from those who can get jobs means higher contributions to help those who can't.
And even if one doesn't have a high-level education, being "poor" in a developed country affords a better lifestyle than being "middle class" in that very same country a few decades ago. In other words, the same minimum wage dollar buys many times more goods. The cost savings spread everywhere - hence post-scarcity.
