Will Wilkinson argues that robots will make manufacturers rich
When I employ labour, production is a matter of the coordinated integration of capital goods with valuable human skill and effort. Productive cooperation naturally raises questions about the fair division of the spoils. Now suppose I replace all my workers with machines. Questions of distributive fairness disappear! I own the machines; I don’t owe the steely suckers anything! Of course, the principal reason I choose to automate is not that machines don’t slack off, become indignant in the face of injustice, or go on strike. I choose to automate because it saves me, and thus makes me, money. Of course, “robots” are expensive. I buy them from robot manufacturers. At some point, a good robot “pays for itself”. Until then, I’m dividing profits with the robot-makers instead of workers. (Imagine I’m paying in installments out of my revenue; it’s a lot like paying wages.) After then, I internalise all the gains from production. All mine!
Will might think that he is going to rake in tons of profits from a purely robotic assembly line but he is going to be disappointed.
It turns out there are other capitalists with exactly this same idea. They too are going to buy robots. They will compete against him and drive the price of his product down, all the way down to the price of the robots.
Indeed, if managing a robot firm requires less skill, and is therefore more open to new competitors, than running a human factory then Will could actually see his profits decline in the robot future.
So who will profit in this world? The superstar engineers who own the patent on robots.
Rents always accrue to the limiting factors of production. Simply put, the people who walk away with all the cash are always the ones who own the thing that is in shortest supply.
When labor is in short supply its workers. In a world without efficient capital markets, its those with access to a pool of private savings. In our modern world it is the creators of new technology and the managers of other people’s money.

11 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ March 9th, 2011 at 1:48 am
Ryan Vann
Seems there are mitigating circumstances to your story. First, there will probably be a first mover advantage, in which profits are perfectly possible, and can be plowed back into these cool new automation gadgets. As demand picks up for these factors of production, they become more expensive, further increasing entry costs for second movers.
So, yes Will could potentially make big profits
Wednesday ~ March 9th, 2011 at 1:51 am
Noah Smith
Well, whoever owns the intellectual property or is paid to do robot improvement, whoever doesn’t have robot-improving skills is going to be out of luck.
Wednesday ~ March 9th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
William Wilkinson
Karl, Yeah. I was super-simplifying. My imaginary company is meant to represent capital as a whole, so I left out competition between capitalists. The main point here is that when capital replaces labour with robots in a sector of the economy, labour obviously isn’t getting a cut of the profits like it used to. Other things equal, distributively you’d expect this to improve the position of capital as a class relative to labour as a class.
Wednesday ~ March 9th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Sister Y
I don’t see a qualitative distinction between people and robots. That is, manufacturers who use human labor will (and do) attempt to gain the benefits of ownership of the workers (control, dependency) without the concomitant costs of ownership (maintenance, feeding) as much as possible.
Wednesday ~ March 9th, 2011 at 7:26 pm
bdbd
And robot manufacturers will try to capture the gains from having robots in manufacturing or industry by clever pricing.
by the way, it should be “it’s” and “it’s” in that last paragraph. Something else robots might be useful for.
Wednesday ~ March 9th, 2011 at 9:02 pm
pjcamp
So what does Goldman have that’s in short supply? It clearly ain’t money since everyone is sitting on their piles of cash.
Thursday ~ March 10th, 2011 at 6:39 am
anon
“So what does Goldman have that’s in short supply?”
Access to the financial system, ability to provide financial services, proprietary trading skills, favorable connections with regulators etc. etc. All of these are in short supply, sometimes due to artificial factors. Our financial system is quite complex and strictly regulated, which favors long-time ‘insiders’ such as GS.
Thursday ~ March 10th, 2011 at 6:27 am
anon
In the long run, robot manufacturers will price their products at a competitive price. Capitalists will benefit somewhat if rates of return rise, but the real winners will be owners of scarce natural resources and perhaps governments.
Monday ~ March 14th, 2011 at 7:03 am
A Weekly Round-Up of Small-Business News - NYTimes.com
[...] and/or are more highly automated.” Karl Smith, economics professor, argues that tomorrow’s manufacturing robots will benefit the engineers who own the patents. A Silicon Valley company develops artificial [...]
Monday ~ March 14th, 2011 at 8:51 am
This Week in Small Business: Start-Ups Surge | Freelance and Blogger Jobs World
[...] and/or are more highly automated.” Karl Smith, economics professor, argues that tomorrow’s manufacturing robots will benefit the engineers who own the patents. A Silicon Valley company develops artificial [...]
Friday ~ July 15th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Quora
What are the most understudied areas of economics?…
The modern discipline of economics depends on a lot of assumptions. And here’s the thing: you can still have a discipline of economics even if you drop some of these assumptions. Fields like behavioral economics and neuroeconomics, for example, were a…