Economists often assume unlimited human wants and limited resources, giving rise to scarcity. Under the assumption of unlimited wants it is perfectly reasonable

Economists often assume unlimited human wants and limited resources, giving rise to scarcity. Under the assumption of unlimited wants it is perfectly reasonable to predict that 40 years from now paid employment will remain as common as it was 40 years ago even if we don't know what the jobs will actually be. I have a somewhat different perspective. I believe that human wants expressed in market economy terms -- e.g. "market demand" -- are satiable and becoming increasingly satiated among households with buying power (top two income quintiles in the US, for example [1]). There's limited demand for more consumption of services that already existed in the 20th century. You can only go to the doctor, the dentist, or the barber so often before more-frequent visits become a chore instead of a luxury. New inventions may spur different demands but scope for aggregate growth is limited by hours in a day. Scrolling through Instagram replaces going to the movies and maybe some day exploring virtual reality replaces scrolling through Instagram. That reallocates entertainment demands but it doesn't necessarily mean more aggregate consumption or entertainment-employment. There is big growth coming in home health aides, elder care, and similar jobs. But that's due to an aging population rather than the development of new service jobs for the 21st century. Big growth in demand for "gig economy" services? Maybe. We'll see after the VCs stop tolerating losses. [1] The unmet wants of the lower income quintiles are less significant in a market economy because they don't have growing buying power. Two former bank tellers aren't going to find employment walking each others' dogs.