Depends on what your definition of "good" is.

If your definition is "it could, at some point, enable me to stop paying humans for their labor and pass along more of the value to major shareholders like myself", then yes, that's a reason to want humanoid robots.

If your definition of "good" is a little more broadly scoped than the above - which it should be if you don't have an MBA and a substance abuse problem - then you're correct.

In a competitive market, this won't happen: "passing along more of the value to major shareholders like myself." The price of human labor will go down, but competition will force the price of goods to go down alongside it. Profit margins will stabilize, but the cost of living and the cost of goods will plummet. It's like the invention of the power loom: it was terrible for the wages of hand-weavers, but it made clothing radically cheaper and more abundant for the rest of humanity. The only way the shareholders keep all the value is if we allow monopolies to form.

The potential difference here is that it might eliminate all human labor which would likely force us into some new kind of economy. Hopefully something better than one where humans waste their lives on manual labor.