No? Prices are market-driven in our society, not necessarily a function of labor costs. In the very long-term best case scenario, the increased profits going to the company from these efficiency gains may encourage more competitors to pop up, and either drive prices down or offer more for what you pay.

▲

greedo 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Healthcare costs (what I assume you mean by prices) are the least market-driven items in the US economy. And as much as the medical community would have you believe, the primary driver of costs are labor costs. If we had twice the number of doctors, PRNs, PAs, and nurses, their annual income would drop dramatically. But since they're constrained by a guild system, it's not going to happen.

	▲	win311fwg 36 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If we had twice the number of doctors, PRNs, PAs, and nurses, their annual income would drop dramatically. Yes, but the parent is saying that the middlemen will still charge the patients the same and pocket the difference. The patients have already shown what they are willing to pay. There is no reason to charge them less, even if your labor costs are now lower. Theoretically competition will eventually squeeze the middleman, but it's not exactly straightforward to build a hospital on every street corner like you can a restaurant. There is somewhat of a natural monopoly there. Maybe less so for basic clinic care, but where the infrastructure needs are complex...
	▲	43 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Gud 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you mean, “our society”?

How do you know we live in the same place.

Perhaps where I live, efficiencies are to the benefits of everyone?

	▲	ndarray 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You live on Mars?