To the average reader this may seem like heresy, but the majority of economists hold that technology does not destroy jobs, it merely shifts laborers into better jobs.
If possible, of course. I doubt the burger-flipper displaced by the burger making robot will have the aptitude, interest, and STEM degree that the burger robot technical engineer will have.
Technology is rapidly moving us to a society where the 20% of us (if that) who do have that aptitude, interest, and STEM degrees are the only ones who are “necessary”. Besides us, and a few MBA’s, that’s your workforce of the future; everyone else works for minimum wage. Because automation.
Intelligence and aptitude, however, moves according to rates set by evolutionary theory, not technological advancement. There’s an obvious mismatch there. The assumption of the technocrat seems to be that as those “better jobs” manifest, everyone will just go get the education needed to obtain one. Doesn’t work like that. I suspect that the majority of burger-flippers aren’t burger-flipping because of bad luck or a lack of funds for education; they’re flipping burgers because that’s about what their intellectual abilities permit them.
Gates’ idea, of course, would slow corporations from adopting robotics. The debate is if that’s a feature or a bug, when you consider what benefits society as a whole.