Yeah, I wasn't very clear. Let me try again.

Some centuries ago, 90% of the population worked in agriculture. Food was scarce and traded for things people would find essential. For example, a farmer might not exchange his hard earned food for a haircut or tatoo art. Then mechanization came and people migrated to cities. Only 10% work on agriculture now, but the output of agriculture is greater than ever. This made food so cheap, compared to then, that farmers are willing to trade them for things that would seem futile before. Today, most of us have plenty of food and many have professions that could not be dreamed of before.

The point is that the elite, so to speak, cannot consume what they produce. Even if Ford could produce cars for a penny each, it would only be worth his while in order to trade for whatever it is we're producing. He needs us. The economy never depended on us having jobs, but on people producing whatever the others want in exchange for the things they want.

There's an old story that an American economist was visiting China and saw a group of people digging a trench with shovels. He asked "Wouldn't it be more effective to use an excavator"? To which they answered "Look at all these people. If we used an excavator, all of them would lose their jobs." The economist then argued "If that's the goal, why don't you get even more people to dig with bare hands"? Well, that's how I remember it, anyway.