This is the wrong analysis. Price of goods is say, (Supplier Cost)+(Transit to Store)+(Profit Margin)=MSRP
You're saying that MSRP can't go down without hurting Profit Margin.
He's saying, Transit to Store will decrease, allowing MSRP to decrease without affecting Supplier Cost or Profit Margin. (Or Profit Margin can increase while MSRP remains the same)
Capitalism has a tendency to optimize for a monopoly.
Healthcare is expensive. Education is expensive. Land (in some places) is expensive. But man stuff. Stuff is cheap.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/detail.a...
Similarly, if Apple could reduce its shipping costs to near zero by teleporting the raw materials to Foxconn and then teleporting the finished goods directly to retail outlets, they'd still charge $600 per iPhone, even though they have competition from other phone makers in the form of Android.
The Invisible Hand doesn't always work the way it did in Adam Smith's time.
> Yes, many jobs will be lost. But the prices of many goods will decrease.
If you're talking about what I first thought of, which is things like groceries, housewares, the "every day things" that we all buy and consume without really thinking, I'm not sure that A: The prices on these items could go much lower than they already are and remain profitable, or B: That the producers of said goods (majority MASSIVE corporations with impressive names and product rosters, and the most likely early adopters of this technology) would reduce the prices in accordance with the reduction in cost. The trend now among these companies seems to be to squeeze every last cent out of every last consumer, and if you're proposing to your given board of directors to buy all these new trucks (or change contracts to a company that has) why would you then cut the prices?
I would hope there would be market pressure to do so from at least one good actor, but I don't know how certain that is at all.