The worker must get wages to buy the product. The company must sell product to get the money needed to pay workers their wages.
When you put robots in the mix you break this cycle. When workers/customers don't have money to be customers of employers, everybody loses. It doesn't matter if products are cheaper.
The tragedy of the commons is that corporations in seeking to become more efficient by eliminating employees are actually shooting themselves in the foot.
The change the OP suggests is drastic, but it is a valid methodology to maintain the money cycle. The only thing wrong with it, is that it is not fair. Why should someone who produces no economic output get paid?
Because otherwise they pick up a gun and rob the robot-owner.
That's the essential element that the rich folk concentrating capital and eliminating labor are forgetting. When the people have no bread, they do not eat cake. They start chopping off heads, without being very discriminating about whether they deserve to remain attached to their necks or not.
Probably in classic Capitalism. There is a huge potential of consumers due to unprecedented human population. Once wages will further rise in China-South East Asia, there will be plenty of consumers to buy more products. However, I'm afraid that this is also only a transition phase. It's not a matter of money, they can print as much as they want. It's a matter of power and control. Once the elites reach the point to control all the resources and the means of production, the model will change from capitalism to global Feudalism.
But of course you may be right. In many cases, the endless greed of big corporations lead their owners to act without thinking the consequences.
