Forgive me for pointing out that I already fully understand the economic argument that says greater productivity and efficiency (from more capital intensive production) can create more output per labor input. That is the definition of productivity.
What I said, and was never addressed, is that if the income lost to the laborer or a large number of laborers is not replaced by other income, he his poorer. Unless John can find something to trade for the output of Bob's capital, that also cannot be automated by Bob, who after all is the owner of the robot, not John, than John will not have income to purchase any of the output.
Pretty straightforward concept. Almost a tautology.
What you're suggesting is that it is a law of economics that John will, somehow, no matter what, have something to offer Bob of economic value.
In a world of total automation, there is no reason to assume the typical person will have any good or service to offer that can secure him a share of the output. He might demand a share by political means. But economically he might have no value. You haven't dealt with the possibility of there being people with no economic value.
People get by in the world by trading their labor for consumption goods, or by drawing an income from the ownership of capital, or by getting state entitlements.
If a person's physical and most, if not all, intellectual labor is worthless, than very few people will be able to make a living.
If you think a person with a hungry mouth will automatically be entitled to a share of the output, regardless of whether he has anything to exchange for it, you probably haven't integrated political reality into your economic paradigm.