You’re using the same argument that’s always been used and it’s incorrect. God forbid a checkout clerk get replaced with an automated system. What would the clerk do? Consider farming. There was a time when half the population farmed. Now it’s less that 2% because of machines and technology. It’s accurate to say that “half the jobs were lost” to farming machines. But it wasn’t a bad thing. Quite the contrary.
This article comes at the question from the idiotic “income equality” point of view. It’s a joke. Bring on the robots!
Actually you are hitting at a strawman because I'm not using that argument at all. I agree to bring on the robots. But I also agree that something should be done to help workers adapt to their changing situation in order to help them take advantage of the new opportunities that will arise.