Just folding clothes is only commercially automated in very expensive and limited contexts (can fold shirts, but not blankets), and it won't put up the items for you. There are any number of restaurants that would love a kitchen-cleaning robot that guarantees that part of the restaurant inspector's rounds is always taken care of to a consistent degree. Just a robot modified from a pick and place solution to declutter by putting up out-of-place items and remembering where everything is located would find a large market. We're nowhere near good solutions for these and many other "simple" skills, much less mass market solutions.
I sometimes wonder if a giant "donut" job market will develop: many pattern-based very high-end specialties get automated, and many extremely low-end (Roomba, for example) ultra-repetitive tasks get automated, but lots of low'ish end jobs like custodial work stubbornly remain. Above the income strata of those low'ish end jobs in the middle sits a group of steadily-insecure positions as automation constantly nibbles away at their edges from the higher-end income stratas.
Why would it need to be a single package? Is there a point to making the roomba do laundry?
Initially, we will be forced by circumstance and market to adopt single-purpose robots like the Roomba if we want to avail ourselves of their benefits. But there are so many different tasks that I do not foresee a future of mass adoption of such single-purpose devices; the economics do not support such an outcome unless you imagine a near-future where most of the planet's population is compensated around the current US median household income per year.
But coming back to stock brokers, is there an epidemic of college educated stock brokers ending up unemployed due to automation? I don't think so and that's because they have other skills they gained from their education. Automated trading algorithms don't make stock brokers useless in the same what that automated garbage collection doesn't make programmers useless.
