One common thing about all those jobs is that they've all been automated in parts and continue to be more and more automated. So you may be right that for some

One common thing about all those jobs is that they've all been automated in parts and continue to be more and more automated. So you may be right that for some reason not every job can be automated 100%, but that doesn't save those jobs from automation. See how happy 9/10 laid off zookeepers are when you tell them "Hey, at least we kept one of you to run the machines!" Even if you can only get to a mere 50% from some baseline, that's half the previous work force blown away that was previously required. Those laid off will have to find another field quick. It's not easy to change careers and it's not easy to go from a mostly-labor job to a mostly-thinking job. (I'm being fairly broad with labor and thinking here--e.g. I consider someone whose job is to input handwritten form data all day to be a labor job even though they sit at a computer for 8 hours, and a professional artist to be a thinking job even though it's probably better categorized as a creative job.) Since mostly-labor jobs are the easiest so far to automate large portions of, those jobs are at the highest risk. Programming is the last bastion of a large supply of available jobs until we have AI smart enough to write most of the programs people want, it seems sensible to have a sizable subset of the population at least somewhat knowledgeable on the matter that they have a chance at switching to a programming job if their current one goes sour for any reason (like outsourcing), not just automation.