Automating processes in production activities aims to "remove" human factor(s) altogether from phyiscal activities, leaving only management and maintence personel (that is if it is not outsourced) of the automated systems in a production site. Thus, comparison between "reduction of workforce" because of more advanced tools (and animals?) and "removal of workforce" caused by automation is just... silly.
There are many reasons to automate processes, chiefly eleminating or reducing certain costs and increasing quality "consistency", as well as decreasing activity times with all the other benefits. The latter of which may be the most important for certain sectors.
Even then, if the production site managers deem it is necessary to keep workers to preform supporting activities (eg. keep an eye on dem robbits leaking lubricants), it will be either because they are still in process of being automated or quality control needs a human to "feel it" or its just a publicity stunt to show they are fullfilling their obligations to society (ha!). But automation will ultimately result in "no jobs" for workers who did the activities that became automated; there is absolutely no reason to keep workers, even with lowered wages. Remaining human workers will have to have higher qualifications and move on to a different set of responsibilities, eg. as mentioned before like maintance of automated systems; inspection, servicing... etc. instead of... y'know, doing what the automated systems do. This will effectively eleminate the need to employ low-to-unqualified workforce in a production site. Even with all the best intentions to employ maximum number of workers, total number in a production site, after fully automating production processes, will be a fraction of what it was before automation.
note: written while drunk, may not exactly be english or even engrish.
1. Capital ownership and opportunity: All of the careers you mention could absorb many more workers in terms of available tasks (something like teaching could easy grow 10x), but that doesn't justify a claim that they will. The farming transition was enabled by mass ownership of productivity gains - careers like entertainment expanded massively because lots of demand was newly available to support that supply. The Picketty school of thought argues that this isn't inevitable; it's possible that a few kids get one on one education, and a bunch of people starve because wealth concentration means there aren't enough buyers for their work.
More specifically, the rich won't buy arbitrary amounts of services because their time and desires are not unbounded. Even 1-on-1 teaching can only employ one teacher-hour per buyer-hour, and the returns on 'background support' don't really justify having 50 people make one lesson plan at living wages.
2. Capability: Take a look at all of the careers you outlined there. They're all skilled-service work, most of which requires having more of some trait than your customer. Teachers need knowledge, counselors need insight, care workers need knowledge or patience and emotional reserves. Crucially, a lot of this is relative - it's not enough for a teacher to know things, they have to have knowledge their customer doesn't have and does desire. Factory labor took some specialized knowledge, but the transition from "a strong back for working fields" to "a strong back for milling cotton" was far less extreme.
This is the sort of two-sided market that's hard to stumble in to. I'm not saying most people can't learn an employable social/service skill, but if you lose your factory job you can't just accept a low wage to work as a teacher. There are significant time and price barriers in that transition, and it's not clear that they'll be overcome without non-market intervention. Markets are wonderfully efficient, but they can certainly decide that it's not worth retraining someone instead of letting them starve.