So will the workers be getting raises for the increase in productivity?
Let's say I own a lawn care business, and you gladly accept work raking lawns for $10/hr@8 hr days, and you can rake 2 acres per day(or, $40 per acre). If I decide to plunk down a bunch of money and buy a turbine leaf blower, and you can now do the same job on 6 acres per day, except using the leaf blower for 6 acres is much less physically exhausting than raking 2 acres of leaves, how much money should I as the business owner owe to you for my own investment into increasing your productivity?
For example, if you work in IT you benefit from massive capital investments that researched, developed, and deployed every bit of technology you use, from 18th century research on electricity (and probably earlier research) to every component in your PC to C to the Internet to AI, to the technology used in the global supply chain that makes it all (to much, much more) ... Should you be paid as if you were utilizing no capital, and you were working in a cave by firelight with carbonized wood on the wall?
Almost all of anyone's productivity, I expect, is due to capital investment that they didn't make.
When viewed through the eyes of the jewish religion for example, which says you need to give 1/7 or 1/10 of your income to the poor. So this number is now 3x.
It all depends on what moral system you view things through, and a moral system that encourage sharing of wealth seems like a good thing.
So by reducing injuries, those employees receive higher pay (because they get their normal salary instead of the lesser workers comp pay), and they are able to work more years.
It's clever actually, taking attention from the question which was (total pay / time worked) to (pay rate * time worked). Most wouldn't notice, I'm sure, and it makes things look favourable - especially since your question was about the average worker, not the injured worker, i.e. the exceptional one.
We shouldn't stop the comparison of pay at the moment a person is injured. These are people, they don't stop existing the moment they aren't useful to a company. And an injury does effectively reduce their pay by preventing them from working, or forcing them to change careers.
This is a safety device, and no productivity improvements have been shown yet. So you wouldn't expect an outright increase in hourly wages. But an increase in working years without injury is a benefit to workers, and does increase their lifetime earnings.
If you think the wage is fair then you will appreciate the lower fatigue and reduced risk of injuries.
The risk is already priced in the insurance so by reducing risk you effectively increase the income spent on insurance.
So a device that reduces injuries, will enable them to work more years, and increase their lifetime earnings.
But that discussion is irrelevant to this article — the point is that exoskeletons are cool.
E: lowers the price. Supply increases, demand stays the same.
The empirical experience is very clearly the opposite!
Looking to the past, we can look at how industrialization has greatly reduced the amount of human labor in agriculture.
If you want profit in excess of what the market will pay for your skills then you need to take risk yourself - start a business and make as much profit (or loss) as you are capable of.
There is a section of society that advocates for making laws that artificially pay people more than they are worth by forcing business owners to pay above market wages. This will make employees artificially more expensive and encourage alternative mechanisms to reduce labor costs (automation / outsourcing).
In the best situation, there would be no minimum wage. Society could choose to top-up wages with whatever benefit they want (basic income perhaps) and let the market freely determine wages. The more you warp the free market, the more unintended consequences you have.
I understand the theories, but the real world doesn't operate that way; the market isn't free. Income depends to a significant degree on the ability to write the rules of the marketplace and labor law in your favor, and the resources to utilize those rules and laws (e.g., money and lawyers); workers don't have such influence and resources. Consider Uber and its non-employee employees, for example. It also depends to a great degree on who you know and who your parents were.
Also, I'll point out that a backup offensive lineman in the NFL, junior attorneys and investment bankers in NY, and many similarly situated people in Silicon Valley make more than the U.S. military officer in command of the entire Asia-Pacific region, many Nobel Prize winners, many doctors saving lives right now, not to mention social workers, teachers, diplomats, almost all scientists in academia, etc.
People are paid based on supply and demand for whatever they offer (with supply and demand being determined by everything I discussed above).
Starting a business isn't the only way to participate or take risks in the market. You also can try to sell your skills to another employer.
Working for the government - say as a soldier or social worker - doesn’t mean you deserve more than an investment banker. Your choice was to work for that industry. Perceived impact on society does not translate into wealth. Free markets determine pricing. A soldier earns whatever a politician says he or she does.
Any employee of Uber can leave at any time. No one is forcing them into that economic situation. Plenty of examples of people who grow up poor become rich despite not having well connected parents.
What changes to the system are you advocating for exactly?