Apparently, while I've been messing around with fiction and farce, there has been a discussion going on in the economic blogosphere about the impact of robots. I owe this awareness to Magpie, who has put up a good post at his blog. Links to some of the prominent contributions in the debate can be found in Magpie's post. Usually I would provide the links here also, and perhaps write an in-depth post of my own on the topic, but for once heteconomist, it seems, is ahead of the game, or, more likely, was behind the game last time it was played. So, instead of putting up a new post dealing with the topic in depth, I will simply draw attention to a previous post that relates to some aspects of the present discussion, and make a couple of cursory remarks:
In relation to the post, I will note the following:
1. Krugman's answer, in "Technology and Wages, the Analytics (Wonkish)", to whether "rapid productivity growth is necessarily jobs- or wage-destroying" is that, "It all depends". He arrives at this view by making reference to a neoclassical aggregate production function, which of course is a no-no around here but par for the course in the mainstream. Even so, the conclusion "It all depends" is the same as the one I draw on the basis of the temporal single-system interpretation of Marx.
2. Magpie, in relation to the present discussion, considers Marx's contention that labor is the source of all value. In my earlier post, I found this a useful starting point for thinking about whether capitalism will be viable in a highly mechanized economy, and found, much like the answer to question 1 above, that "It all depends".