While I agree with you this cost isn't really borne by the people employing the human. Maybe the community, the taxpayer, even parents, but not the employer. As such these costs you mention are "sunk" - in the end as an employer I either take on a human ready to go or try to develop robots. That cost is subsidized effectively via community agreement not just for economics but for societal reasons.

I'm not saying the robots aren't coming - just that it will take longer and being disrupted last gives you the most opportunity to extract higher income for longer and switch to capital vs labor for your income. I wouldn't be surprised if robots don't make any inroads into the average person's live in the coming decade for example. It is a MUCH safer path to provide for yourself and others in what is a capitalistic economy where scarcity and barriers to entry (i.e. moats) are rewarded and efficiency while beneficial for society as a whole (output per resource increases) tends to punish the efficient since their product comparatively is less scarce than others (i.e. given same purchasing power makes intelligence goods cheaper, less disrupted goods more expensive). I find tech people often don't have a good grasp of how efficiency and "cool tech" interacts with economics and society in general.

In the age of AI the value of education and intelligence per unit diminishes relative to other economic traits (e.g. dexterity, social skills, physical fitness, etc). Its almost ironic that the intellectuals themselves, from a capitalistic viewpoint, will be the ones that destroy their own social standing and worth comparatively to others. Nepotism, connections and skilled physical labor will have a higher advantage in the new world compared to STEM/intelligence based fields. Will be telling my kids to really think before taking on a STEM career for example - AI punishes this career path economically and socially IMO.