I have posted around this subject on a few previous occasions.
The essence of the problem society is facing is the declining share of labour in economic activity.
Whilst some try to reassure by drawing a parallel with the industrial revolution ("we survived that change, and maintained employment, so we will survive this change too"), this is flawed logic.
Directly after the industrial revolution labour had a smaller contribution to economic activity than previously, but it still made a significant contribution. As @StephenL notes, labour unions were able to successfully command a commensurate reward to labour in the form of jobs and wages.
The problem we have today is that the labour share of productive activity is becoming vanishingly thin. The proportional share of economic rewards is getting squeezed in turn.
The major share of activity is now in the form of capital which in this context, means machinery, computer systems and software. The owners of this capital are, therefore, reaping the majority rewards. See Apple, Google, etc.
This is not an aberration, and it is not a symptom of a broken system - it is an inevitability of the changing composition of the Factors of Production. Left purely to market forces, the owners of the "capital" will continue to pull away from the rest of society, creating a two tier economy where a significant portion have little or no means to alter or change their circumstances. This has been referred to in places as "indentured capitalism".
This seismic shift in the balance of factors of production is, in itself, a market distortion, and direct government action to re-balance in favour of labour (either by way of Universal Basic Income, or higher taxation on capital owners) should not be seen as a socialist move. It is, rather, a humanist approach, that would simply be ironing out the capital distortion.