That feedback loop only works if freed up resources can be used in another area to create jobs. As you have repeatedly been pointing out nobody knows of any such area of the economy like that exists today. There literally isn't anything left after agriculture, manufacturing, and services. Please tell me where my last sentence is wrong. If it is not then it is you who are relying on <magic>.
Even operating under the presumption that agriculture, manufacturing and services are the only 3 sectors that a job can ever fall under, you still offer absolutely no evidence that we can automate every single possible thing that humans may want in the future. I have already proven that you cannot predict or even imagine future jobs, yet you demand that automation will handle those as well.
The Luddite Fallacy perfectly proves my point.
No it doesn't, your argument is not new, it's been used since the 19th century by the Luddites, hence the term "Luddite Fallacy".
For the Luddite Fallacy to apply to modern day automation, you'd have to assume that all the cab drivers and McDonald's cashiers will become computer programmers.
This is not even remotely true, and suggests that you don't know what the Luddite Fallacy is. Although it brings up an interesting point about computer programming. Today, 12 year olds can create web apps and applications that would have taken thousands of engineering hours 10 years ago.
That's not true of the the engineers and computer scientist needed for automation.
Automation is just technology, the creators of technology will always be a small section of the workforce.
On top of that there is another HUGE difference in the current technology that is replacing the old. Information technology has near zero marginal cost while the old industries do not. Back in the industrial revolution, as resources were freed up people could buy more products which increased demand for more manufacturing thus creating more jobs. In today's economy adding more people to Facebook or having more people buy Windows doesn't create many more jobs. That's because creating more copies of those costs next to nothing.
You fundamentally don't understand the point. We still have a 5.5% unemployment rate. Technological innovation and automation has been happening for a long time and yet we still have not seen even a shred of evidence of technological unemployment. You keep demanding that this technology is different, today is different, we're doomed, but you have not provided any evidence or sound reasoning for how this would happen and why.
You simply are engaging in incomplete thought experiments of how the world could be if automation were to take over suddenly today. You have yet to provide evidence of Technological unemployment
The notion of technological unemployment leading to structural unemployment (and being macroeconomically injurious) is labelled the Luddite fallacy. If a firm's technological innovation results in a reduction of labor inputs, then the firm's cost of production falls, which shifts the firm's supply curve outward and reduces the price of the good (limited by the price elasticity of demand[15]). The widespread adoption of the innovator's technology could lead to market entry by new firms, partially offsetting the displaced labor, but the main benefit to the innovation is the increase in aggregate demand that results from the price decrease.