One things is clear: The automation will not stop, and in the long run, will lead to less demand for unskilled labor. Perhaps less demand for labor overall. The societal change brought brought on by automation started more than a century ago but is likely to accelerate exponentially (technology is finally getting cheap and widely deploy-able), similar to how the dot com boom happened.
I see this leading to two divergent societal paths, and I see us actually picking a perverse mixture of the two.
One path may be a near-Utopian end to drudgery, where production is mostly automated, and people can have whatever they want without spending effort. This, however, requires a re-imagining of the predominant economic systems. We might end up in a Start-Trek like post-scarcity world, but the path going there would require either Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Subsistence (everyone is guaranteed food, housing, healthcare and basic goods -- they work for the rest), or some form of neo-socialism. The problem is that some people (you will see this in rich kids) take well to living a life of leisure, and may even become extremely productive in other types of endeavors (art, music, etc.). Other people _really_ don't take well to idleness and become either suicidally depressed or create trouble for themselves and society (once again, another group of rich kids).
The second, and unfortunately more likely, path is that everyone who is not directly involved in exploiting automation will be squeezed out of the labor market. The only people making money will be the ones driving the automation -- with few people to buy what is produced. You will, of course, see a market created for "artisanal labor" where the rich hipsters buy hand-made goods and eat at non-automated restaurants But this will not be enough to create a labor market. This scenario is likely to lead to resource wars, repression by the rich, and genocides.
Whether out of idleness or desperation, both scenarios are likely to bring religious/political fanaticism fueled by a desperate search for purpose/food in a dangerously idle/desperate world. In either scenario, some people may end up rejecting this new world order and moving to intentional agrarian communes -- but not enough of them to matter.
The elephant in the room of this extrapolation is that most (if not all) economic activity relies on exploiting natural resources -- which (whether you are a global warming skeptic or not) are dwindling. Automated exploitation of resources is NOT going to help things. Imagine what will happen if EVERYONE in the world is able to reach American levels of consumption thanks to the ease of production. Even if you are not an environmentalist, you should still fear the awesome resource conflicts this will cause.
If we want to remain in a livable world, we may need to take a _very sober_ look at what kind of society we want to have in 50 (or even 20) years. I'm not even talking about achieving anyone's idea of Utopia -- it will take SERIOUS WORK to maintain a world which is as livable as it right now. I do not think any of the previously tried -isms is the answer. Finding what _may_ be the answer will itself be work.