Reply #28: While that is true it requires less humans.

[Statistical]

Say you got a plant that requires 1,000 humans.

It can be replaced by say 400 robots. While there are humans in the loop it isn't 1,000 humans. If it was then there would be no economical reason to use robots. So say the human footprint is 300 humans (operators, programmers, repair techs, management, etc).

While it is good for the 300 what about the net 700 human jobs lost?

Now think of that on a macroeconomic level. Companies with robots have an advantage over those without and thus the automation trend continues.

When 99% of manufacturing is fully automated we will still "build things" but it will require a lot less human jobs. So what does everyone else do?