When it comes to the subject of automation, I read that the wide majority of the arguments assume that the profits/savings "vanish", alongside the jobs loss.
I see the reasoning above as flawed though: if automation lowers the prices of the goods (both by increasing productivity, and by reducing costs; I'm ignoring the automation industry itself) in general, this leads implicitly (in the long term) to an increase in wealth, and by extension (again, in the long term), to an increase of the jobs offer.
In practical terms, if producing, say cars, would cost less, people would save money and spend it through other markets, say going (more) to theater; the increase of demand in other markets would create new jobs, in this case, theater companies.
I see the net of all of this as positive. Am I missing some important factors?
I can see as argument (by some) that this phenomenon could/would only lead to increased profits for the "Top 1% of the evil capitalists©". Although undesirable, this is irrelevant - such (evil©) people would certainly spend or reinvest the money, again, leading to the mentioned consequences.
It's important to note that I'm talking about long term. I'm sure that if literally tomorrow automation would take over millions of job, it would certainly be a disaster. I'm also assuming a healthy economy, that is, the increase of savings/profits wouldn't stay still under the mattresses.