The argument has been true in the past because technology lowered prices, and people used their new disposable income to pay people to do work they used to do themselves, which grew into the huge service industry we have today. There were also jobs created that involved building and repairing the new technologies, but far fewer than the jobs that were lost. If service industry jobs are automated away, will we always have more service industry jobs to create? I think this is unlikely.
"If the boring things are all automated, then everyone can have a job they enjoy, and sitting around all day doing nothing gets boring really fast."
But how will these people doing jobs they enjoy pay their bills?
Lets think about it with this example: if it takes a worker 2 hours to make product X, but then a new technology comes along which makes it only take 1 hour to make product X, then the value of labor has doubled.
Then the owner has a choice, he can either double all the salaries of his employees and have the same income for himself, or else fire half his employees and double his profit.
This example shows that unemployment is not a result of new technology, but of choices made by people who have the most power in a society.
"if it takes a worker 2 hours to make product X, but then a new technology comes along which makes it only take 1 hour to make product X, then the value of labor has doubled."
Wages are set by the supply and demand of labor, not by how much a product can sell for. The hypothetical new technology leaves the supply of labor unchanged, but the demand for the labor is reduced.
"Then the owner has a choice, he can either double all the salaries of his employees and have the same income for himself, or else fire half his employees and double his profit."
Have you actually pretended to be the owner in this thought experiment? Why would the owner double their salaries?
You owe it to yourself to take an introductory economics course, because your comment flies against everything that such a class would teach.
I'm done arguing with you, here is another comment for you to down vote. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt that you wanted to have a reasonable discussion instead of being condescending and insulting, I guess I was wrong about that, what a shame.
Downvoting is disabled on threads a user participates in, so it wasn't me. My intent was to inform, not to insult. For the argument you made to be correct, textbook economics must be wrong.
"If the boring things are all automated, then everyone can have a job they enjoy, and sitting around all day doing nothing gets boring really fast."
But how will these people doing jobs they enjoy pay their bills?