This doesn't make sense to me. On the one hand, a big reason for automation is that you can easily replace a broken component with another one. If an army of technicians were required to fix a robot, who would buy it? On the other, a large part of creative destruction in the modern era is that 1 new job replaces many old ones, unlike the example of the car replacing the horse an buggy. Innovation no longer replaces specialized craft-labor (required for building a buggy) with huge factories full of workers (required to assemble a car), it replaces that factory with very few specialized knowledge workers an loads of automation.
"With the current state of robots, you're talking about taking away the most dull, dangerous, and dirty jobs out there"
But we're not talking about the current state of robots, like robotic arms painting a car, with a highly specific set of pre-programmed instructions
The future of robotics alluded to here ranges from automated package delivery, robotic supermarket clerks and checkout counters, to automated fast food service.
There's no technical reason at the moment why something like an automated drive-through burger place couldn't exist
But really though, future advances in AI could even put most lawyers out of work, what with autonomous systems which fill out contracts, deeds, divorce papers, etc, jobs that are already being outsourced.
So it's pretty naive to think that only dangerous blue-collar work would be subject to robotics and automation. And it's not unreasonable to surmise that unemployment in 50 years might be 20%, a society where the wealthy build and own robots and their labor, while everyone else picks-up the scraps.