I think the writing is on the wall that uneducated and also the mostly educated people are not going to be needed for work within the next 30 years.
Let's follow this line of thought through to its logical conclusion.
The uneducated become economically superfluous. The wealth gap grows to astronomical levels, with STEM career people becoming fabulously wealthy and lit majors and high school dropouts surviving slightly above poverty level on the newly instituted universal basic income.
Is this system better or worse than what we have now? The super rich will still
have more money than the newly enriched STEM folks who are actually driving the economy. Instead of an elite class and a working class, well have an elite class and a working class and a new useless plebe/slave class like the ancient Romans. We're calling this progress?
Depending on how the politics unfold, it might not be so bad. Some people are ill suited to work, by handicap or illness or bad luck, and as long as those people are still full citizens then I would rather see them provided UBI than live on the streets. This part already exists (disability insurance, etc) so the only change is in extending it to other people who could
be working, but choose not to (edit: or for whom economically productive work is not available). Former coal miners, factory laborers, early retirees, artists, as long as the robots can provide them health care and food/housing and internet access and voting rights, maybe they're okay with being economically "useless"?
The distinction here is between plebes and proles. "The proletariat" has historically been defined as the class of people who own nothing except their ability to labor for wages, because they do not own the means of production. If robots deprive them of wages for labor, what does that leave them? How does that upset our economic hierarchy?