Ideally, we end up like Star Trek. Society aligns with humanity's health and best interests.
Probably, we end up like Elysium. Society doesn't align so, and access to goods and services is still mediated by either (1) having lots of money or (2) being employable.
Got any evidence to back up this begged question?
Mass unemployment's plausible in the near-term.
Article:
Every study we could find on what automation will do to jobs, in one chartFrom: MIT Technology Review
Date: 2018 JAN 15
...
Here’s the problem: the findings cited emanate from a wide array of studies released by companies, think tanks, and research institutions. And their prognostications are all over the map. [...]
...

...
Of course, not all statistics are created equal. The most commonly cited numbers are from three places: a 2013 Oxford study (not listed in the table) that said 47 percent of US jobs are at high risk of automation in the next few decades, an OECD study suggesting that 9 percent of jobs in the organization’s 21 member countries are automatable, and a McKinsey report from last year that said 400 million to 800 million jobs worldwide could be automated by 2030. [...]
...
With regards to the long-term, it's reasonable to surmise that eventually we'll run out of things we do better than machines and computer. At that point, culture and politics will decide what happens.
And what will people do if they don't have a job such as go out with friends, stay at home all day?
And how will people survive if they don't have money because A.I replaced all their jobs?
Wrt near-term mass-unemployment, I'd hope for Basic Income and 20 hour work weeks. Share the benefits from productivity gains and split jobs up between more people.
Wrt long-term total obviation of labor, I think this would be tantamount to post-scarcity. "Fully Automated Luxury Communism," is my favorite 'comedy option' descriptor.
In the latter scenario, we'd still constrained by resources and science/engineering. Because of that, I expect everyone would have access to a baseline but would still somehow compete for access to above-baseline goods and services.
Also, people'd still want work (of some kind) for all the other reasons they work. People would work for some combination of social standing, purpose, fulfillment, identity, avoiding atrophy, etc. Most people acclimate to baseline then want a better diet, better residence, etc.
I think all you'd really do is remove, "not dying in the next few weeks from starvation or exposure," from the list of motivations people have for working.