While I agree with you that the change brought on by progress can be very damaging to the elements of a society that have been made redundant, I think you have to step back and take a look at the big picture.
As I see it, when you are presented with a change that adds efficiency to an area of the economy (and thus reduces the amount of labor required to get to the same level of output), you've got a choice to make. Either you can attempt to maintain the inefficiency (in this case, redundant car salesmen) in order to keep those workers in a job or you can attack the root of the problem and put those workers to work doing something that adds value to the economy.
I'm not saying that there aren't moral and ethical arguments in trying to keep a job for those workers, because there, especially from a societal standpoint. But from an economic standpoint, maintaining those inefficiencies typically leads to systemized exploitation of artificial inefficiencies (case in point: smuggling to bypass protectionist tariffs) and that wastes additional effort that could be adding value to the economy.
As I see it, when you are presented with a change that adds efficiency to an area of the economy (and thus reduces the amount of labor required to get to the same level of output), you've got a choice to make. Either you can attempt to maintain the inefficiency (in this case, redundant car salesmen) in order to keep those workers in a job or you can attack the root of the problem and put those workers to work doing something that adds value to the economy.
I'm not saying that there aren't moral and ethical arguments in trying to keep a job for those workers, because there, especially from a societal standpoint. But from an economic standpoint, maintaining those inefficiencies typically leads to systemized exploitation of artificial inefficiencies (case in point: smuggling to bypass protectionist tariffs) and that wastes additional effort that could be adding value to the economy.