All you have to do is look at the history of the ice industry. You'll also notice that there are no seamstresses with wooden looms anymore either.
We also have 4.7% unemployment in a ridiculous labor force with a high participation rate.
The purpose of technological innovation is to improve the quality of life of human beings.
Technical progress is, exclusively, the reduction of labor to reach an end. It took 40 hours before, now it takes 20 hours, costs half as much. Sometimes we invent new things, but why? Why did we create the railroad after the hot blast furnace allowed us to create 86,000 tonnes of iron using the same labor that used to create just 200 tonnes? Why GMOs, fertilizer, irrigation? Why computers, spreadsheets, and accounting software?
One of the main reasons there is a raging debate about this in terms of what happens to jobs is because some people can't stomach the idea of us having innovative technology to the point that it doesn't require every citizen to participate in the labor force.
it never has. Our labor force participation rate in 1948 and for decades up to then was measured substantially-close to 58%, with little fluctuation; it ballooned rapidly after the 60s. The peak near-70% participation rate was a bubble spanning decades--it literally spans multiple generations, and now people think that's normal.
What would a world look like where there is little or no resource scarcity and there is a limited need for labor
You're living in it.
90% of US workers were farm laborers in 1790. People hunted and homesteaded. Housewives would do a little knitting and such at home and make a little income that way; largely, they handled the household--repairing and making clothes for everyone in the house, cooking, cleaning, all those things that are hard when you don't have $18 shirts at WalMart and an automated Roomba and dishwasher.
Our parents and grandparents bitched a lot about work.
They bitched a hell of a lot.
The standard work week was 6 days per week, 10-16 hour days, back a century and a half ago. 90 hours was a normal work week. The demand for a 60-hour and then a 40-hour week, for a 12-hour day 6-days (2 hour-long meals) and then for 8 hours, it was incredible. People whined that they had to work so damned much.
Here you are talking about a world with a limited need for labor--a world where the labor force in 1940 and 1950 was 58% of the adult population, working 8 hour days, leading history from an 1880s and 1900s world where people worked twice that and... cried about how unfair it was.
I can probably actually engineer an American economic plan that gets us down to 28-32 hour work weeks (3.5-4 days) without reducing the available wealth--in the next decade, no less. You'd think it's great; 40 years from now, someone will be working 3 days a week, 24 hours total, talking about the way we're driven as slaves by greedy employers and overpaid CEOs.
Why some people don't ever want to get here is beyond me
They don't want to lose their jobs today for a world that fundamentally can't exist without far-future technology; and, when a world like that exists, we'll stagnate as a species and a culture. Even if we didn't, we'd end up with the worthless and useless masses kept like cattle or pets by the oligarchy of the elite.
Get the audiobook from Audible for Perfect State. It's performed quite well, and you'll get the idea by the time you finish.
There are some people that think that it's noble to dig a ditch with a spoon when a free back hoe is available. There is nothing noble about that. It's pure stupidity. We have better uses for our time and energy.
Yes: digging a million ditches with automated, controlled, maintained backhoes; building floating platform environments for Venus and deep-ground dome environments for Mars; and generally producing shit from the future using technology from the future. When you can wave a magic wand and terraform a planet, you need a hell of a lot of human labor to back you up; the thing is, the current population of Earth doesn't have the labor to spare to do it--or maybe even to accomplish it with every available hand if we worked ourselves to extinction just to show if we could.
Jobs will be plentiful in that world. They won't be the jobs we have today; and their superficial similarity will stand in stark contrast to their modern counterparts, with small crews of grunt labor and single engineers handling the job of thousands of men spanning hundreds of crews. They'll produce a hell of a lot more, which is the only way there will still be jobs.
We just need them to produce floating hotels and interplanetary transport, not worthless holes some people dig while other people fill them back in again.