How will non-rich citizens make a living if jobs keep getting replaced by robots and are outsourced? Decades ago a factory job could support a wife and kids until retirement and they offered insurance, benefits, etc. Now, no more unions, those jobs as well as tech and customer service jobs are outsourced, and anything left in the US is mostly being replaced by a machine or robot.
Assembly lines had 50 guys in the factory, all gone due to 2 robots assembly something and only needs a few men to monitor them. Blockbuster and Borders were destroyed by online video streaming and Ebooks. Wages also aren't keeping up with the cost of living. The rich get all these tax cuts even if they outsource every job they make, but us &quot;little people&quot; keep getting the downside.
I'm young and very scared of the future. Technology and new companies use to make jobs. Now one guy can make billions of dollars with a few friends only.
This is an interesting question a lot of good labour economists have been thinking about for a while. There are a few conflicting theories as to what will happen. You could base a whole career on this question.


This IGM survey will give you some idea as to what leading economists think.


The prevailing opinion seems to be that increased automation is not going to come at a cost to employment. There are countless examples of advancement lowing the returns to labour occurring throughout history (the plough, the steam train, industrial revolution). None of them has shown a long-run reduction in employment. The Solow Swan model for example,  includes inputs to labour, capital and technology. They show technology and labour being complementary. I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that this has changed.


This HBR article suggests that we aren't really seeing a cost in jobs, more a benefit in productivity. It also mentions Robert Solow's famous remark (which was correct at the time):


  you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics

This MIT article presents a bleaker perspective with the concluding sentence:


  In other words, in the race against the machine, some are likely to win while many others lose.

Another article suggests that "this time it's different". 


The analogy used is that humans are horses and we are reaching peak human


  demand for the labour of horses today is vastly less than it was a century ago, even though horses are extremely strong, fast, capable and intelligent animals. “Peak horse” in the U.S. came in the 1910s


In my opinion, this analogy is intuitively satisfying but is not particularly useful. We will see fewer humans working the supermarket checkouts and more in entertainment in the same way horses are no longer our ploughs and our taxis but are more likely to be racing and performing. Past that I think the comparison is a pretty big logical leap.


The Economist has an opinion somewhere in between


  [Keyne's] worry about technological unemployment was mainly a worry about a “temporary phase of maladjustment” as society and the economy adjusted to ever greater levels of productivity. So it could well prove. However, society may find itself sorely tested if, as seems possible, growth and innovation deliver handsome gains to the skilled, while the rest cling to dwindling employment opportunities at stagnant wages.



More likely, we will see a (potentially painful) transition in the uses of labour. A factory that used to employ thousands will now employ hundreds, possibly eventually only a dozen. These people will seek employment elsewhere and probably find it, either in existing industries or ones that do not yet exist.