Upwards to 40-50% of "9-5 jobs" will be replaced by automation or software by 2030.
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519241/report-suggests-nearly-half-of-us-jobs-are-vulnerable-to-computerization/The point you are missing is that the security that the masses crave is an
illusion. The promises made by the G20 nations represent a massive amount of unfunded liabilities that are going to have to be covered. The USD is backed by the "faith and credit" of the USA. If the tax base is unemployed and added to welfare rolls that are unfunded it is easy to see that what backing USD has is going straight out the window. There is no real security there. It's a lie and a house of cards.
The thing you aren't seeing is the masses will have to change their perspective if they want to survive. Also, they will need the right tool for the job.
What defeats your rebuttal in this case to me is that the 50-60% implied rate of continued success is still "good enough" based on his original argument.
This is telling me, as part of the masses in this one, that in a decade and a half I'll have a 50-50 shot at losing my job . . so in the very least only half the illusion is fake. Note the wording there . . no pun intended.
Coupling this with the idea that most things (like food) should have a significant loss in relative value (thus becoming more affordable as per prev. discussion in this thread) . . then I would logically conclude that my government would just increase taxes . . successfully allowing our game to continue.
From this standpoint . . I'd need more to be able to agree with you, because if 50% lose their jobs, taxes double, and my ability to get food and live in a home becomes increasingly lower (like to the point where I can afford double taxes) then I'm still missing your point because it still appears as if nothing would be too damning (even though I personally share your opinion).
Maybe we could expand into a more detailed breakdown? Do you have any more examples?