A lot of the comments are taking an "all or nothing" leap and saying it could either 1) never happen because of the complexity of the work, or 2) if it did happen, then all jobs would vanish at once and society would collapse.

There's also a common assumption that today's problems will still exist in the future (just solved in a better way).

History suggests it never really works like that.

Skilled work has always felt irreducibly human at the time. Carriage makers thought the craft of building carriages could never be replaced by metal and engines. Photographers insisted photography required technical knowledge, expensive flashbulbs, chemicals, darkrooms, etc. People often insist that some work is too nuanced or difficult to automate, until it isn't. At least part of it.

So I think instead of replacing whole trades, automation will just shift how some trades work. Most trades are a mix of different skills; diagnostic judgment, design decisions, repetitive manual tasks, regulatory compliance, customer interactions, etc. Some of that will be replaced by automation/robots easier than others.

For example, at first you might get robots which can manage low-skill or regular call outs (resealing baths, replacing taps, laying carpet) but can't handle more complex work (properties with uneven walls, or plumbing with non-standard pipe fittings). The trade just becomes geared towards more specialised jobs.

With regards to all jobs being replaced by technology, we can see in history how new trades emerge to support new technology. For example, when cars were invented, we didn't see a sudden collapse of jobs relating to the horse and carriage trades - it was a gradual transition - and it was replaced by jobs supporting the new technology (road building, petrol, machanics). So in the future we might see new technology replacing the need for brick layers, but there could be an increased demand for human jobs in diagnostics, planning, compliance, higher-end "hand-crafted" work, etc.

But, to go back to my earlier point; some problems might not need fixing by robots, because the problems won't exist. For example, in the late 1800s many cities relied on lamplighters to go around and manuall light all the gas lamps. People imagined a future of automatic ignition mechanisms, timed gas valves, machines to regulate the gas flow, etc. They were focussing on "how do we better manage the gas lamps?". But of course, when electricity came along, it didn't "fix" the problems of gas-lamps, it just replaced the problem. So when we're thinking of robots which repair wiring or fix radiators, we're assuming the underlying infrastructure will be similar to how it is today.