Well, let me claim it then. The labor market will eventually be destroyed. That's the end goal of automation and it is an achievable goal. It's very likely decades away what makes it both too far to be an emergency and too near to ignore.
The destruction of the labor market requires more than just lots and lots of automation. You would need extremely capable general AI. Thus, I don't see the destruction of the labor market without entering a technological singularity. Since predictions about a post-singularity future are extremely hard to evaluate, I don't see how planning for it can accomplish much.
We can however make plans for the route that may lead up to that point. It behooves us to make plans for a labor market that has not been destroyed, but which is undergoing significant changes due to automation.
> Once a particular kind of work becomes worthless another will replace it.
Yes, but the question is if the new jobs will pay, in aggregate, as much as the jobs that disappeared:
"Aggregate wages will be reduced if workers are substituted for technology without new jobs of equivalent worth in aggregate wages being created elsewhere in the economy."
> I am wary of the people who feel the need to try and prevent the correction by way of government regulation.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. The only way to prevent the correction(s) is to prevent the automation(s).
There are many ways we can make the correction(s) less painful. We can provide funding for re-training. We can provide unemployment benefits. We can provide basic income.