[bingohbangoh]

This argument never sat well with me.

Businesses buy machines, AI, and other automation systems to improve their standing. They do this regardless of the price of labor (unless labor gets really cheap but this is broadly not true in the US or EU). Investing in such assets give them an advantage.

The problem is when everybody does this. Then its no longer an advantage but a necessity. There's probably something to be said about this also raising the barriers to entry in certain fields (e.g. try opening up your steel foundry).

Therefore, businesses will look to technology to augment and/or replace labor whenever they can. This is regardless of the current labor market (barring extreme circumstances, of course).

[pdonis]

> businesses will look to technology to augment and/or replace labor whenever they can

But a big part of "can" is whether or not the solution using technology is cheaper than the solution without it. And a big part of that is the cost of human labor. If human labor is more costly, it is more likely that a technology solution that allow more value to be produced with the same human labor will be cost effective. Conversely, if human labor is cheap, plenty of technology solutions that would allow more value to be produced with that labor simply don't make business sense--you'd be spending more for the same output.

So while it's true that businesses are always looking for uses for technology, regardless of the current labor market, whether or not they actually end up implementing them does depend in large measure on the current labor market.

[hpoe]

Yes but it is a supply demand. If putting in the automation infrastructure is going to cost be $500,000 and $100,000 a year to maintain it then as long as I can keep an employee for $30,000 a year that probably doesn't scale. Whereas if the cost of the employee moves to $50,000 or $60,000 a year it becomes more advisable and prudent to do so.