So you buy a high priced robot to replace a worker. Then you have to hire 3 tech guys to service the robot. What am I missing here?
You buy 100 robots to do work around your warehouse, have a few people supervise, and a repair team on call for any which break down.
If enough break down that you need a 3-man team continually on site, then you sue the company for making crap.
Robot makers didn't say, "Buy our robots and replace all your factory workers."
They said, "Try one ('we'll loan it to you as a demonstrator') and see if it is cost-effective. If it is, buy more."
Robots chipped away at factory jobs little-by-little.
Say a factory robot costs $30,000. It can work 24 hours a day (except for a little downtime for maintenance). It's maintenance is a little more than that required for most machine tools, but not by much. Historically, factory robots did specific jobs, so their programming was repetitive and not particularly complicated.
Now compare that to a human being.
Human beings are expensive and moody.
And, unlike humans, robots are precise and predictable.
Humanoid robots will follow the same path as historically taken by factory robots. They will be tried for one job. If they do that cost-effectively, they will try another one...and so on and so on.
The robot does not take 15 minute breaks. It does not take lunch or sick days. The Robot’s kids don’t need to be dropped off at school. It is not late for work in a snow storm. It does not take off 2-4 weeks/year for vacation. It can work at 3am and does not get tired. Its productivity is the same on first shift, second shift or third shift.
Three “techs” can take care of hundreds of robots.
The “techs” also do not work for your company. They are contract workers that work for the robot manufacturer. They don’t get benefits from our company.
Kickbacks and stock prices (”We’re AI capable!” should be good for a 10% boost, enough for the CEO to buy his third mistress her second vacation home.)