Of course not in the long term but it's worth thinking that losing entire classes of jobs containing millions of people in a decade might have seriously detrimental effects for some time.

In a democracy, one negative consequence of fast job loss followed by poverty is the election of populist leaders and governments. We have recently seen a prominent example of this phenomenon. If the reduced quality of life of the affected people isn't addressed, their reaction will likely become even less pleasant.

You seem to use 'populist' as a pejorative term. I would suggest that populism can be a good thing. I'm opposed to Trump, but not because he's populist. I'm not even sure he is a populist, since I don't believe he or his administration have any real concern for the democratic masses; they're riding a populist wave out they're out to gain power and wealth for themselves. This contrasts strongly with, e.g., the New Deal or Civil Rights reforms, which were real populism.

"populism" without a modifier is quite often used in the specific sense in which others use the more specific "authoritarian populism"; that is, demagoguery which features use of populist rhetoric to build support for authoritarianism.

This can be a source of much confusion because it is often unclear from a single encounter whether someone criticizing "populism" is an elitist opposed to politics genuinely directed at the interests of the masses, or simply warning of authoritarian demagoguery.

But is impeding change helpful or harmful? There is something to be said for mild conservatism taking slow deliberate steps forward, but it's very easy to create false economies protecting an obsolete past and impeding progress.

Is it an either/or? Surely you can choose to accept a fast rate of change and also try and do something practical about the consequences at the same time?

Describe the new jobs which can not be automated in the near future.

Sounds like a good job for AI.