The anti-automation argument isn't that automation is bad, and grueling labor is good. The argument is that being forced to change careers can be - depending at which age it happens for a person - anything from taking away significant amounts of wealth to complete impossibility. When you change careers, you usually start at the bottom of the ladder. Past a certain point, such switch is not recoverable, and best you can hope is that your children will start a good career early and won't be themselves forced to switch careers later on.
If automation didn't involve pushing people into deep poverty, it wouldn't have as much opposition.
The lean FIRE people show that the bad part of losing a high income career is the hugely wasteful lifestyle that preceded it, not the career or it's loss.
Automatic sending wealth to capital instead of labor is another issue, perhaps better viewed as capital ownership being centralized as the actual problem.
Achieving FIRE is relatively rare and privileged situation. Many families have non-negotiable expenses, particularly around healthcare. Even for those who don't, going lean will be a huge shock and a downgrade in quality of life. It's only reasonable such people will object. Much like I myself could survive on 20% of my income, but I wouldn't be happy about it being forced on me.
> Automatic sending wealth to capital instead of labor is another issue, perhaps better viewed as capital ownership being centralized as the actual problem.
That's the underlying issue. Not the fault of automation per se, but of the thing that drives it. It serves to highlight my point: anti-automation arguments aren't really about automation itself.
If automation didn't involve pushing people into deep poverty, it wouldn't have as much opposition.