Why should an employer buy a robot at $250K when he can just use cheap people. The movement of manufacturing from the west to places like China isn't because China has better robots -- it's because they have cheaper people.
Brian
Here in the US a rule of thumb is that it costs about 2X wages to employ someone. That covers the costs of administration, employer taxes, training ...... So a minimum wage person making $20K costs $40K a year to employ. I have no idea what annual maintenance costs on the robot would be, but it seems likely that if the robot lasts 10 years it will have saved money. If, like many industrial machines, it lasts 20 it virtually guaranteed to be cheaper than a human.
Similar (but different) analysis will apply worldwide, with robot costs likely much lower in China and other similar locations. So while it is possible that cheap human labor will win in some locations, it isn't obvious to me that it will everywhere.
And don't forget to divide your working day into three shifts, factor in sick days, holidays, costs of safe working conditions, bathroom breaks, healthcare, all the things meat sacks need to get through the day, wastage due to 'mistakes' etc. so your costs treble.
Suddenly a robot workforce doesn't look expensive.
That's partly why the 'dirty' jobs in manufacturing get shipped to third world countries.
It's a nonsense to try to maintain jobs that can be done far cheaper elsewhere or by mechanisation.
Very sad fact of life but with the progress of technology it means industry and 'the workforce' has to be continuously evolving unless you can find some cosy little niche where 'old fashioned' is the main selling point.