One of the more intuitive articles on labor markets i have read lately deals with Bullshit Jobs that was recently in the Economist.
The article pays importance to the magnitude and significance written of the work of anthropologist David Graeber article of the same name.
In it Graeber presents the economic argument of increasing industrial productivity of the 1930s whereby it was thought that technology would linearly substitute most menial jobs with the far more capable machinery so totally that a new system of economics would need to be enacted; one where laborers work less hours and gain more leisure and money in order for the system to not collapse.
Clearly this favorable scenario didn't materialize. But why? Well the author argues that what happened was a global surge in bureaucratic administrative structures because increasing globalization has occurred. This required a lot more white collar workers constantly slaving in their cubicles to get all the different regulatory and organisational frameworks for every single product --> And many of them just create work with no meaning for others down the line i.e. a bullshit job.
The economist actually thinks that the technology available for companies is depressing the volume of workers needed which would, possibly, trickle down to the hordes of younger white collar men expecting to get a foot in the labor market emulating their baby boomer fathers and mothers. So maybe bullshit jobs are saving us from a worse existence - mass unemployment.