The jobs and the welfare of individuals are the top priorities IMHO, but I'm not sure there is a great problem. This isn't at all a new situation.
If you look at the jobs of a century ago in advanced economies, most of them are gone yet employment now is relatively high. Just think of the homemakers who were displaced by the automation of home care (clothes washers and dryers, vacuum cleaners, etc.); that might approach half the population. There's also textiles, mining, factory work, etc. It's a regular process: Productivity improves, less labor is needed in one area, and so it shifts to something more productive. If it wasn't for that creative destruction, there would be no software developers; they'd all be in the mines and fields.
What is different this time? I've heard all sorts of speculation, but I haven't heard anyone with expertise seriously analyze and address it.
There are problems: To me the essential issue is that while the economy in aggregate grows through this process, individuals don't live in aggregate; they suffer (and sometimes gain) tremendously. The economy may grow 4% in aggregate, but most people don't get 4% richer; some lose 100% of a job (and house and children's education, and even healthcare in the U.S.) or gain 100% of a job. Perhaps that is no longer acceptable to us; it's not to me. The factory may move to a different part of the country, and in aggregate the economy marginally grows (there are the same number of factories in the country and we can assume it was moved to increase productivity), but all those individuals lost jobs.
In addition, some research shows that a large segment of the population hasn't been getting wealthier for decades; only a few are. For example,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/08/resea...