It’s all your fault. You created jobs for robots, as you demanded that companies increase their efficiency in providing superior products and services. Companies responded to your demands sufficiently, driven by a positive response to consumer demands for efficiency. Companies introducing robots and machines is a clear example that there is no such thing as market failure—companies are doing what they are supposed to do: listening to consumer demand.
What if, however, you dislike the idea of robots and machines taking over jobs that humans once did for a living? Efficiency is deeply ingrained in the business-to-consumer vernacular, and it has sparked a movement across all industries and markets. As you are already aware, the efficiency craze is prompting companies to increase the number of machine workers, which has become a self-fulfilling prophecy—everything from policymaking to quick-service restaurants and industry regulations is created with the idea of efficiency in mind. We want our food, travel, and technology to be accurate and fast; when it is not, we are frustrated, yet we lament about the ensuing robot-driven economy. There is a conflict of visions between consumers: those who want a push-button economy and those who prefer a human-only economy. Economically speaking, we can’t have our cake and eat it too.
We demand that companies increase efficiency and at the same time lower the prices of goods. We ask for better and better quality of goods, therefore, employers must make decisions whether or not to go full throttle on machine workers, so they can do the heavy lifting that humans cannot or, in most cases, will not do anymore. We want to press the button, click the app, and receive the order yesterday.
We like the allure of a push-button world and all its efficiencies in theory, but not in practice. We hear on every corner of the earth that robots are taking over human jobs, but in another sense, consumers seek lower-priced goods and quicker services from companies or close substitutes. However, we must lean on economic law number one—scarcity. The rationale to provide a push-button world via robotic-enabled machines is clearly explained by Ludwig von Mises:
A new machine, more efficient than those used previously, is constructed. Whether or not the places equipped with the old, less efficient machine will discard them in spite of the fact that they are still utilizable and replace them by the new model depends on the degree of the new machine’s superiority. Only if this superiority is great enough to compensate for the additional expenditure required, is the scrapping of the old equipment economically sound.
Mises goes on to say:
Those questioning the correctness of this statement should ask themselves whether they always throw away their vacuum cleaners or radio sets as soon as better models are offered for sale.
According to Tooify.ai, there is “a clear indication that America still has reservations about embracing AI and robotics in many industries and aspects of life. Whether it’s the idea of a robot nurse, doctor, or childcare provider, there seems to be a collective aversion.” Let us consider fast food, where order completion and accuracy are at a premium, with an average of 4 minutes from order to delivery in the drive-thru. We love wait times, don’t we? QSR stated that, “Wait time in 2024 was 3 seconds slower than 2023. Service time—how long it takes to get the food to a customer after their order is taken—was 17 seconds faster, year-over-year. Total time was 14 seconds faster.” These data suggest that consumers prioritize speed and efficiency, and companies are responding to demands in every way possible.
We are ever closer to a world where everything is a push-button away. We have asked for it, and here it is, a robotic, machine-enabled epoch. Robotics can build homes and manufactured products using push-button 3D printing—a technology now being applied to business operations regularly. Society no longer needs a human to open doors to a building or an elevator; robots can open and close doors more efficiently than humans can. However, here is more: Forbes has just released a brief article about the new Zoox robotaxi. Not only can we push the button to request a taxi ride, but companies have also created robot-driven taxicabs to direct customers faster to their final destination. Consumers demand, and companies have pushed greater production onto the robotic machine, notwithstanding human augmentation.
For centuries, companies have tried nearly everything to achieve efficiency. Now it is time to try AI-driven robotic machines. You and I may not wholly agree with the idea of robotic co-workers or AI agents acting as the principal agents. Let’s be realistic; we leave employers no choice but to make decisions with net positive incentives for both them and the consumer, which ultimately boils down to either hiring humans or robots. There is, for sure, a misunderstanding between costs and prices. The average person may dislike the idea that robotic machines are now used as grocery cashiers, but in theory, they would rather see a human. However, the same consumer wants out-of-store delivery (drive-up quick service), app-based service checks, and many other efficient services that drive up the costs of doing business, which may or may not require human workers.
Let’s face it, we are all driving up the incentives for employers to normalize the use of robots in service markets. I am sure that many company owners would love nothing more than to hire all humans, but is that a reality considering the costs of meeting efficiency demands signaled by consumers? Alternatively, we have created a need for the increasing use of robots and machines to perform tasks that humans once did (or no longer aspire to do) in the marketplace. Robots fill the gaps between employers, incentives, and the human disutility of labor; in other words, there are jobs out there that people no longer aspire to do in large numbers. In other words, we all want to relax and do the fun and easy things in life, and here we are, a push button away from the material things one most desires! In other words, we love ordering from Amazon and seeing our package delivered to our doorstep within an hour. To maintain customer satisfaction and achieve a return on investment, decisions regarding the use of robotic workers must be made.
So what is the problem with robotic cashiers, robotic fast food counters, robotic therapists, robotic bank tellers, robotic taxis, and even a robotic worker? Efficiency is expected from a vast number of consumers, and companies have delivered. Are businesses at fault for being led to robots that can perform tasks, or is it the consumers’ expectations of efficiency and the demands placed upon them that force companies to pursue robotic efficiency to increase customer satisfaction? Do we save human job roles at the expense of more deeply efficient deliveries of products and services that we love so much?
