https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUmyygCMMGA

Quote
Recent advancements in artificial intelligence and robotics have commentators worrying about the coming obsolescence of the human worker. Some in Silicon Valley are even calling for a basic minimum income provided by the government for everyone, under the assumption that work will become scarce. But many economists are skeptical of these claims, because the notion that the the economy offers a fixed amount of work has been debunked time and time again over the centuries and current economic data show no signs of a productivity boom. Fortunately, we don't need to divine the future of the labor market in order to prepare for it.

Sorry, just responding to the quote, not the video (and I saw an article by the same title today).

The only problem with the comment in the quote is that periods of massive change may not result in less work overall, but they do create winners and losers.

We use the term "Luddite" to refer to someone who just doesn't "get it" and is reflexively and stupidly anti-future. The thing is, the original Luddite weavers were *right*. Economic historians estimate that it took the families of weavers two to three generations to recover from the income loss created by machine weaving. I could see a similar, but much broader, dislocation from AI

The video does address that somewhat; it does acknowledge that there will be winners and losers.  We've talked before about how the coming changes will be as disruptive likely be more disruptive than anything in the last 100 years.  I found it interesting to see an argument put forward that we'll adapt just fine.  
The basic argument is:

• that the work displacement will also free up resources which will cause new work
• growth in productivity per worker is slowing despite more automation

I'm not saying I agree with them, but it was interesting to hear a counter argument.