There is a struggle as to who will be more prized by employers -- robots or humans. Robots and automated technologies will change how companies buy and sell and how humans view their work, but some people are asking at what cost. The cost of losing jobs to robots? If we glance over human history we see the very opposite of the doomsayer's prediction if future job losses to the robotic hand. Throughout history, humans have adapted and outpaced the threat of emerging technological automation, demonstrating our resilience and ability to find new ways of working. The young and seasoned employees are affected by robots competing for front-row seats at the economic stadium, at least that’s the overwhelming perception of young and seasoned populations. Are robots taking over human jobs, or are robots and automation creating new jobs for us humans? I say it is the latter and not the former.

Over time, entrepreneurial and innovative feats have outpaced the immediate threat of technology throughout history. From prehistoric times to the Industrial Revolution, humans have consistently outpaced the threat posed by emerging technology by finding new ways of applying skills to the workplace. We adapt and move on. There has never been a time when human labor worked solely on its own without some technological assistance. Those who assume that robots will take your job do not understand how diminishing returns are applied to the economy. Contrarily, economies and the companies therein must follow profit and loss and turn to robots and automated processes to produce what consumers demand. You may ask, why is that, Mr. Gross? Well, because a business cannot apply infinite amounts of human labor as it pleases to a production process without concern for profit -- or, in other words, meeting the demands of the consumer.

Let's take a look down memory lane for a few examples of humans outpacing automation. The employee from decades ago who sliced bread for shoppers in the grocery store has moved on to more productive endeavors within the breadmaking manufacturing side of the business. We would dare not add more humans to bread slicing, as the result of that decision would net the same output with less input, diminishing productivity returns. Here is another point: Taxi companies once refused to use technology for hauling services. What happened? Hauling services that apply technology, such as Uber and Lyft, create more jobs and lower barriers to new drivers because those companies have decided to use AI and automated processes. Moreover, guess what -- people are still involved in the service as buyers and drivers.

Do you remember calling the telephone operator if you needed to find an address or phone number? An automated robot now does this. The youth delivered newspapers -- now digital. If you ordered something fancy, you could pay for items via cash-on-delivery (COD) -- we now use cash apps on our smartphones. In order to listen to music, music companies manufactured record players, tapes, and CDs, and now music is created and distributed purely digitally by a robotic automated manufacturing process. In another case, an elevator operator assisted people into and on elevators to reach their floor, which was a standard job for people of many ages. The switchboard operators for telephone companies and even camera developers at your local pharmacy were prominent for some time before that job became obsolete when smartphones merged with digital photography and digitized the process.

Long ago, people revolted against the calculator and thought that the advent of handheld calculators would kill off math teachers. However, technology has always "taken" over humans' tasks, and in many respects, it has shown that we have moved on to greener pastures. Do we need elevator operators to help us find the floor of a meeting? Do you need a cash-on-delivery person to make payment for a catalog order? Do we need calculators to do math? Yes, and do we need math instruction to learn math concepts? Yes.

My point: Why were these jobs and products in vogue then (disrupted by technology), and why are they now obsolete? The market listened to consumer demand, automated processes, and the production of products, and found a better method and better use of the human worker. This underscores the power of consumer demand in shaping the economy and the adaptability of human labor in meeting these demands.

On the practical side of the economy, there are business practices that may not need a robotic justification to take a human's role. Some are customer service, data entry, and repetitive admin work. Does this mean humans will no longer do these types of tasks? No. They will, just differently. This is why entrepreneurship, market adjustments, and innovation come into the picture of how we work.

Free markets and entrepreneurs do not invest or make products and/or services that we, the consumers, do not want. As we make demands, companies have to adjust. An article by Forbes titled “What Jobs Will AI Replace First” has it all wrong. First, the word replace is very misleading, as robots and AI will not replace anything or anybody absolutely; a robot can replace the elevator operator or disposable camera developer, as we have cast our votes to use digital cameras, but even then, on many other fronts humans will still be involved in the end-user process to some degree.

Our economy has a place for robotics and automation, which means the human market can square up some overcrowded markets and industries where robots are a better fit than humans. Instead of viewing robots as job takers, we should focus on robotic job creators -- where the economy needs to show where the most productive energy should be distributed. Robots, instead of wholesale taking jobs, might create more jobs. For some, working with robots means pressing the on button and letting it run, but for others, it could mean the survival of a business, especially when no one wants a particular type of job.

Image: StockCake