None of this is news. Almost all jobs these days exist more for 'coverage' rather than full-on throughput. On an instant-to-instant basis, 90+% of human 'work' time is waiting/transition/communication rather than raw action. You can often tell a long-time professional by how they spend 'in-between' time as much as traditional knowledge domain stuff, there's a sort of performance art folks pick up that's no longer 'looking busy', but instead putting folks at ease when there's nothing else to actively do.
Sure, anything repeated with predictable variance can be increasingly automated. But the job market we've grown into is based on low-balling everyone possible, then selecting the 'expensive' folks based on a random hodgepodge of subjective expectations (largely self-serving for the hiring folks). Automating lets you hire fewer grunt workers for serialized tasks - but it doesn't free you of the need for 'coverage', and it makes a larger portion of your hiring effort the 'expensive hire' style, which is a VERY mixed bag.
Don't get me wrong - almost everything we count as a 'job' WILL eventually be obviated indirectly by automation assuming we don't find a way to stagnate. There's just too much a reward at large scales to automating supply, even when wasteful, and although we'll keep getting waves of demand, it simply won't make sense to spend 40+ hours a week as a workplace like now. We'll find ways of needing less 'people coverage' and more 'system coverage' over time. Greed for time may start pushing back at greed for stuff in the mix of all that.