Slashdot Mirror
Toyota to Employ Advanced Robots
olegalexandrov writes "Toyota Motor will introduce robots which can work as well or better than humans at all 12 of its factories in Japan to cut costs and deal with a looming labor shortage. The robots would be able to carry out multiple tasks simultaneously with their two arms, achieving efficiency unseen in human workers and matching the cheap wages of Chinese laborers, a report said on Thursday." The Motley Fool has a humorous take, and Toyota emphasizes that goodlife, err, humans will continue to have a place in Toyota factories.
The robots will be commenting on Slashdot too! Maybe then the editing will be consistant...
This is another way of starting a sig with this and ending it with that.
So to compete, the Chinese just have to lower the wages that they pay their laborers. They've done it before.
Labor shortage? How about outsourcing (insourcing?) some of those jobs to Detroit where there are surplus autoworkers?
Yes. In Japan the population is expected to do just that.
2^5
It'll be difficult for a labor organizers to organize these robots. But I'll bet it'll also be difficult to get them to act as good consumers.
If by looming labor shortage they mean layoffs, then yes a looming labor shortage will come. Good thing these robots are around. I mean how is a company supposed to layoff workers and get work done at the same stuff. Trully inovative on their part. I for one salute our new robot overlords, while the people in Russia have a robot shortage.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
My guess would be Japan has one of the strictest immigration laws. How many pockets of Japan are filled with ghettos of 3rd world immigrants? How about the UK? France? US?
Seastead this.
So the same robot could be the pusher robot and the shover robot at the same time, doubling their protection of us from the terrible secret of space.
I read a few years ago about Japanese car makers investing heavily in robotics, but then didn't hear much more about it. I assumed that with the opening up of markets like China and India research had dwindled due to such low labour costs. This will require jobs to maintain and of course develop the robots. Which really are going to be mechanical arms with some basic AI thrown in.
...I'm waiting for the 'our new robotic overlords' jokes to start flooding in.
Toyota can spend more on design and less on the actuall production of vehicles, which will likely improve safety and performance of the vehicles. I hope over manufacturers follow suit. This should funnel more money into R&D for AI.
Sorry, I just rambled on with thoughts there. hmmm...
Sorry, but no it won't. Let me ask you a question: How many robots do you own that do things for you?
My point is that these will be owned by big companies with the capital to buy and develop them. Then they will just rule the world even more. This is something that really scares me. Someday robots will be able to do so much that the big corporations won't need us anymore.
Le français vous intéresse?
Get off it. It's been done before. The people were called peasants or serfs or comrades. When the people are unable to contribute to the GDP, then society has no need for the people and they are marginalized.
The global economy abstracts the whole capitalist marketplace into two camps: producers and consumers. As long there is some population somewhere that can buy your product (maybe a tiny western European nation with a small, rich population) the rest of the world can go get bent. Crank out your product with robots or slaves or serfs or peasants and make a profit.
Rampant capitalism is known as the black market and it doesn't work very well in the long run. The global economy isn't far from rampant capitalism, but it will work to some extent right up until the point where everybody's job has been replaced by a robot. Then nobody will be able to afford a new television, and the system will be in trouble.
A little international labor law and careful import/export management would be help, but one thing is for certain - this is not the path to utopia where "societies are rearranged so that a decent living is provided for everyone". This is the path to peasantry, serfdom, servitude, and slavery through debt. This is the road to a life where a communist revolution starts to sound like a good idea.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you implying that the waves of successive social rearrangement have made things worse for the underclass? The underclass in medieval European societies were essentially owned by the lords. The underclass during the Industrial Revolution were essentially indentured to their employers. The underclass now are still the underclass, but would you argue that their situation is worse than that of the underclass from ages past?
The global economy abstracts the whole capitalist marketplace into two camps: producers and consumers. As long there is some population somewhere that can buy your product (maybe a tiny western European nation with a small, rich population) the rest of the world can go get bent. Crank out your product with robots or slaves or serfs or peasants and make a profit.
You're radically simplifying to the point of distortion. First, producers don't operate solely within a given nation. Second, nations can be both producers and consumers in the same market.
Internal markets are where it's at in the rapidly developing economies that used to be beholden to the industrial leaders. Take a look at the computer technology and automotive markets in China. Not only are foreign companies entering China, home-grown companies are serving the increasing demands of the Chinese themselves. Would they have been able to build up internal demand without the wealth generated by exports?
Rampant capitalism is known as the black market and it doesn't work very well in the long run. The global economy isn't far from rampant capitalism, but it will work to some extent right up until the point where everybody's job has been replaced by a robot. Then nobody will be able to afford a new television, and the system will be in trouble.
Black markets are present in all economies, but large black markets are the product of restrictive state controls on commerce. People want something that the state doesn't want them to have, so people steal from the state and sell the goods on the black market. The rest of your statement comparing capitalism as a whole to the black market is strange, given that the freer the market, the less likely it is to have a black market.
A little international labor law and careful import/export management would be help, but one thing is for certain - this is not the path to utopia where "societies are rearranged so that a decent living is provided for everyone". This is the path to peasantry, serfdom, servitude, and slavery through debt. This is the road to a life where a communist revolution starts to sound like a good idea.
You mentioned the terms peasant, serf, and Comrade interchangeably in the first paragraph, but now you're saying that a Communist revolution sounds like a good idea. Given the historical failures of Communism (including the liquidation of, rather than marginalization of undesirables), it doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
But those 20 families have a higher standard of living, because they are earning the income that was previously dedicated to 30. Also, the other 100 million people in the country get a higher standard of living, because the cost of cars goes down. (competition means they are trying to undercut the other guy, and now they can!) In some cases costs of transportation accounts for 60% (not made up, but I don't know where to verify it either) of a familys income.
you stand to lose roughly 130 households of potential customers... per factory. Brilliant!
That common refrain is similar to the broken window fallacy, and of course is the philosophical justifaction for sabotage. Although even some major industrialists have said otherwise, it is not overall sensible to give people money (employ them) in the hope that they give some of it back (be customers).
That's like operating a boat by installing an electric fan on the deck, aimed at the sail: the needless extra step just reduces overall efficiency.
If a factory owner has a generous soul and wants to do something good for the larger economy, then he should automate production, fire the 130, and rehire them as something totally different, like scientists, schoolteachers, or policemen.