Like how the birth of farm machines meant the excess former farmers were unemployed forever, huh?
A sector largely requiring large amounts of unskilled labor is replaced by a sector largely requiring large amounts of unskilled labor. In what ways might the current situation be different from that?
Horses’ power and speed were their primary economic interest. Once machines were able to do this better and cheaper, with horses limited to niche applications, what happened to the horses?
Humans’ intelligence is unique in the economy, but machines are now becoming more and more intelligent and adaptable. In one sector this might just displace workers, but what happens when it applies to all sectors simultaneously? Why would you hire a human worker, who cannot work below a certain minimum due to resource requirements to survive, rather than just use a machine that does the same thing for less money?
Is there any law of economics that requires that someone’s maximum feasible production be enough for them to survive? Remember to account for opportunity cost of the necessary resources in your answer, such as real estate being purchased by those with orders of magnitude higher productivity.
It seems there rather clearly isn’t such a law since economically non-viable people already exist.
This position of yours appears to stem from an ideological pre-commitment to Capitalism, and I say this as someone that argues against Communists. The ability of Capitalism to outperform Stalin on human suffering is conditional, and those conditions have held for a long time, but that is slowly changing.