Can AI replace 40% of jobs?

Recently, I came across a story about the future economy, which mentioned that we have 3-5 years before a shift occurs to the current system we have. It focused more on the real estate market.
So, if AI truly replaces many people at their jobs, then who will consume goods, rent or buy real estate, and use services and amenities? Based on logic, demand for household needs and services should decrease by 40%.

The arguments above are solid: if the population has no income, then there will be no expenses either. And then we will face a severe economic crisis because maintaining the current way of life will become impossible for many. Here, it’s worth recalling the essence of capitalism and the desire of corporations to push everyone onto eternal subscriptions, rentals. To build a world where people don’t own anything.
You will have nothing, and you will be happy — Klaus Schwab
This is where all the contradictions lie. If the population has no income to meet basic living conditions, then they will also stop buying subscriptions, renting housing, and using services and amenities. People and the economy will shift into total resource conservation, where only the essentials will be in trend.

Now, let’s compare this contradiction. On one side, corporations and world leaders crave control, submission, and super-profits; on the other side, they do everything to eliminate the middle class and people who can sustain the global economy. In that case, is it necessary to get rid of excess mouths? Again, it sounds logical. But there’s another contradiction — super-profits.

To maintain such a high level of income, an opposite phenomenon is needed — the population’s income. Where to get it? From nowhere, because they are suffocated by taxes, control, and other tools, making life unbearable. Which does not add profits to the treasury of interested parties. And you can’t keep milking a half-dead cow forever — dead end.

Let’s sum up. So, what kind of world do they want to build? One with control, submission, and subscriptions, but not many people. Yes, it sounds logical, but there will be no super-profits in such a world because of the lack of mass — the crowd is the main consumer of everything. Without a population, incomes will fall, and in that case, the economy will need to be restructured, increasing the value of money and lowering the cost of everything material through a financial crisis.
On the other hand, if the rulers want to earn super-profits, they need to stimulate birth rates and expand the economy. And this, in turn, increases the burden on the planet and accelerates inflation. In any scenario, sacrifices will be necessary, but corporations don’t want to sacrifice — dead end again.

So, what kind of world do they want to build? It’s unclear.