With respect, I have never understood this static economic argument. It feels like more venting at the wealthy without a basis in rational economics. That is your right, it would just be nice to have such as that labelled as, "I just hate people who have saved a lot more than I have; I want to vent."
Those evil rich bastards are going to keep getting richer off of what? If there is no one capable of sustaining a free market, from where do the 1% make their ever-flowing profits? Or how do they even keep their wealth intact without a free market? Selling each other 1% brand soap?
This is more static analysis (unless it is just venting, again, you're perfectly free to do that). What is more likely is that people will continue to adapt to automation, as they do and have done during any such period of economic change. Some may begin focusing on equity - owning a stake in their economy, some may begin to more highly value useful education to escape the automated drone work, maybe there will be a resurgence in careers that are not automation friendly, or a thousand million other adaptations. But people will not sit around and starve, and the 1% will not thrive on some mythical market limited to catering to each other while the 99% are displaced, unemployed and homeless.
Each farm tractor sold replaced dozens or even hundreds of jobs-- good, blue collar, back breaking jobs. It drove down expenses and made food so affordable that starvation reached historical lows. All those unemployed field workers, all that ultra-cheap food... but where is the resulting collapse of free market? A bunch of farm tractor 1%ers did not rule over a dead market. It just makes no sense.