Robots seem to be used in increasing numbers in all
walks of life, particularly in industry. Now just imagine the following (not so
hypothetical scenario) wherein the CEO of an industrial company making, shall
we say motor-cycles, decides, because of stakeholder pressure, that the best
option to maximise profits would be to invest in a fully automated process –
using robotics.
The obvious advantages of using robots are that they
work without a break all day if required (apart from any general maintenance),
don’t get sick, don’t agitate for higher (or any) pay, always do what they are
told, don’t get married, have babies or go on leave and don’t get bored with
repetitive actions. In fact they are the ideal “employees”.
This means higher profits and greater returns for
investors – even after taking into account, possibly, any increased debt,
depreciation and maintenance costs.
Following this through to a logical conclusion the
company – with robotics - would now operate at a higher level of productivity,
leading to greater profits. The stakeholders would be happy with increased
dividends and the motor-cycles (or any other items) produced are likely to be
more reliable because the “human factor” has been eliminated leading to more
accurate manufacturing and assembly.
This move to robotics would be noted by competitors
who would in all probability follow suit. This may possibly lead to more
companies, and not just in the motor-cycle industry, converting their
operations to embrace robotics and so increasing their profits and productivity
thereby.
Another logical outcome from this move to robotics
is that the general workforce is reduced.
The question now needs to be asked, “If the
workforce, generally, is reduced because of robotics, who would be able to earn
enough to afford the motor cycles (or any other items) produced in this
hypothetical factory?”
This is a modern phenomenon which applies across all
sectors of the economy.
Interesting.
