I don't think you get what the supply curve is.
No, I know what it is. The problem is that the supply curve as you're using it here is literally tailored to exclude automation from the equation so it's utterly pointless to the discussion at hand.
It's more useful to regard "work" rather than "individual humans" as what is represented by labor, because the supply as you're defining it is purely willing humans so
of course automation will never affect it, you're deliberately excluding the effects of automation in the first place!
This is a motte-and-bailey tactic. You claimed that women working dropped wages but argued that robots working don't, and are now trying to fail back by claiming that the wording is different when I called you on the contradiction of those two claims. Fundamentally your argument depends on the assertion that a woman operating a rivet gun changes supply in a fundamental way that a robotic arm operating a rivet gun doesn't. This is obvious nonsense which should tell you your base assumptions are wrong.
But the fact is that for supply-and-demand economics, supply is supply, it doesn't care about where the supply comes from, only the amount. And robots supply labor, so they increase the supply pool, regardless of how you want to play with the numbers by redefining your terms to exclude them.
People are getting the money though. So GDP is also equivalent to Net National Income, or the sum total of all US residents (legal and illegal) income. It's been pretty consistently going up. Meanwhile, prior to covid, unemployment was at a record low. People are getting the money, but a lot of this is hidden because the number of people entering the labor market rose sharply.
Also, one of the ways this has worked is by dramatically lowering the cost of living. Here's some data on this:
Inflation-adjusted wages haven't gone up, the cost of living has for the most part gone down.
reason.com
Also, real income has gone up
for the individual.
We've already covered that specific manufactured luxury goods, especially electronics made in China, have gone down while necessities like rent and food have risen dramatically, and surprise surprise, every single item on that list except the bicycle and the grill are electronic devices manufactured in China, and nothing on the list is a basic necessity.
As for unemployment, the US only counts people looking for work in a specific way, not people who want to work more but don't have enough hours, or people who want to work but haven't been able to apply. This is pretty well known, there's been multiple issues before with the US reporting "Unemployment down" when there's zero actual new jobs, because there's also no postings for new jobs so people aren't applying.
We can do better than the US government's misleading measurement of the unemployment rate
qz.com
The lower unemployment rate seems like good news. But a major force driving it has been people leaving the labor force for various reasons, which makes the unemployment figures seem lower.
www.forbes.com
Interestingly when you look at the Labor participation rate, which measures how much of the population is actually
working, not just how many are
filing, you get a much more grim picture.
This is a shorter, more stretched version of the chart in the article above. Now consider the rise of part-time instead of full-time jobs and it becomes even worse as there's not only fewer people working, some of them can't work as much as they want. Even worse, these figures are with the majority of the boomers still working. Retirees aren't eating away at the percentage wholesale (that's coming in a couple more years of course) so this is actual losses to the working population. A permanent under/unemployed class, hidden from the unemployment figures by what amounts to creative accounting practices, is starting to emerge.
And of course the rise of part-timers is to cut out having to provide benefits, which is another way compensation has dropped (which jobs offer pensions these days?) that isn't reflected in the dollar figures.
That's way to fast. You are treating this machine like it gets cheaper as microprocessors do. That's incredibly unlikely. Computers are one of the few things that depreciate in value so fast. Machines that actually do human actions, like making burgers, are years and years off financially.
Facepalm. No, that's called
hyperbole. I'm not making actual predictions and claiming that's exactly how many years it will take, I'm compressing the apparent time for emphasis.
