To my understanding this article is touching on the benefits of automation not being evenly distributed in society. In an ideal world I think it's possible to benefit society as a whole through automation. I have doubts this will be the trend anytime soon, but taking the profitability of machines and sharing it across all sectors is the way to go. In other words taxing the use of automation and using that money for universal pay or subsidizing industries where automation can't help. I do agree that currently that is not the trend at all and we have companies like Google sitting on billions of dollars, employing a very small subset of people. This would also not fly anytime soon in non progressive countries, although the idea of universal pay has been approached in many progressive countries already. We are probably in for some harder times before things improve.
Having read three studies on automation - one from 1962, one from 2017 and one from 2018 - they all say the same things: 1) Re-education is the key to distributing the gains of automation 2) Nobody is going to pay for re-education. Taxing automation is going to be (rightly) seen as an anticompetitive measure. 
I agree that in the current landscape in the US atleast, it is seen as anti competitive. Just like universal healthcare. No change will be happening there any time soon. My point was aimed at further into the future, the prospect of automation benefiting humanity. Norway did this with its oil reserves over the last 30 years. They have enough money now in their treasury to make every citizen a millionaire. As current trends continue, what's going to happen? Those that control/have automation will acquire even more disproportionate amounts of total wealth. Regulating (taxing) automation could lead to better distribution of wealth. Not everyone's meant to be an engineer, and since non technical jobs might be taken by automation, these same people could do other things like paint or juggle or what ever. Universal income could help them, we would have more art and non commercial entertainment in society. Important societal roles such as teachers and senior care workers could benefit through better pay and quality of life for those who choose to take these roles. Not trying to disagree with capitalism, just giving an opinion on the possibility for automation to be a good thing that improves the lives of most people, counter to the article. I agree that my views would not work in the US today.
I'm a fan of automation. I'm a fan of re-education. I made an impassioned plea not six months ago to a board of directors to focus more on programming than machine operating. But I also know that the basic problem is that old jobs are being destroyed and new jobs are being created and that the shortest pathway to healing is re-education. "Universal healthcare" is misunderstood. I own a business in the health care industry and I think medicare-for-all is so much closer than anybody really understands. I'm reasonably certain it'll be a reality in two years. It doesn't hurt anyone's ability to work and it doesn't immediately impact anyone's profits. That's not the case with universal income - you're talking about taking a substantial portion of the economy and arguing it can come from taxation. It's all gonna work out in the end. But the Luddites are going to go from skilled craftsmen to hardscrabble beggars making matches in someone else's flophouse. That's not how I want it, it's just what rhymes with history.