50-year-old truck drivers can't retrain to become programmists or anything (on a large scale, at least): plainly biologically, their old brains are way worse at absorbing new information and get new skills than young, 20-year-old brains. Heck, many of them still can't get the hang of all the things related to the internet and smartphones. Additionally, to be truly competitive in the modern world, you need to spend years and years (your entire life, preferably) at getting better and better at something you already have a natural talent for. Besides, global knowledge not as much updates as accumulates, and, say, modern-day doctors need to learn a great deal more than their 19th-century colleagues. Is former aspiring Democratic nominee Andrew Yang correct in, essentially, assuming that there's no solution that wouldn't require some sort of UBI (that is, simply implementing retraining programs is inefficient crap)? What are, at least theoretical, answers to this automation conundrum? Will those, potentially, millions of people living on government benefits be happy or will they become depressive and suicidal due to the sense of uselessness (I assume truck drivers and people of other yet-to-be-replaced professions are more socially conservative than young and bold programmists so the former would, I again assume, undergo that "parasitic" life significantly worse)?
Edit: I've been suggested to take a look at this question: How will non-rich citizens make a living if jobs keep getting replaced by robots and are outsourced?. While it's somewhat concerned with the same topic, the three most-upvoted answers don't answer my question. The first one simply describes the situation as opposed to suggesting solutions; the second one is more about increased productivity rather than the replacement of some jobs altogether and in terms of solutions only mentions UBI in passing; the third one just references a few studies. I believe it's clear that my question is not answered, even partially, by those answers.