The combine harvester and the automated telephone switchboard were tools. If a tool allows for tasks to be done with much less labor, and the quantity of those tasks that need doing don't increase by a commensurate amount, then it does mean replaced jobs. The people replaced may move into new and perhaps even better jobs, either at different employers or transforming their current roll, but the job they once had is in lower demand.
That's the natural evolution of jobs, though. It is not like barbers will lose their jobs because of a new Cylon coming to market. These tools are gradually improving and adding more speed to workers. If someone's job is extremely mundane and limited, they have to evolve before these things take over. Those people can also lose their jobs when a new, smarter, and harder-working employee is hired and capable of doing what they are doing with a few clicks. This is the most common thing I see in companies. Boring employees get replaced by smarter ones every day. Better evolve or get eaten by the competition.
Change is inevitable, doesn't mean either the transition or the new normal will be pleasant. The internal combustion engine eliminated a lot of need for equine toil, but horses have not generally reaped the benefits of automation.
What is your proposed solution then? If an individual working at a company is no longer useful, is it the company's responsibility to nurture and take care of this person? Imagine you have a small company and one employee gets money from you for no reason, and you can't improve this person because he/she has no will to do it themselves. Or is it the government's responsibility? If so, it is socialism you are after.
