Slashdot Mirror


Foxconn To Employ 1 Million Robots

hackingbear writes "Taiwanese technology giant Foxconn will replace some of its workers with 1 million robots in three years to cut rising labor expenses and improve efficiency. Foxconn, the world's largest maker of computer components, which assembles products for Apple, Sony and Nokia, employing 1 million (human) laborers in mainland China, is in the spotlight after a string of suicides of workers at its massive Chinese plants. As labor regulations tighten up in China, human laborers demanding wage rises become replaceable."

372 comments

  1. Welcome! by Llian · · Score: 2

    I for one welcome our robotic overlords!

    1. Re:Welcome! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Well they won't be here for long. If you read all the articles about Foxconn and suicide, I give it about a month before one of the robots blows his brain out with a .45.

      Unlesssss....... they take a cue from Skynet and add the "cannot self-terminate" rule...... but.... AHAHA!

      They could kill each other in a death pact. Nothing says they can't terminate each other.

      Robot turnover rate will be high. You watch.

    2. Re:Welcome! by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      Robots? Is that what Foxconn is calling their indentured servants these days? I guess that means they don't have to treat them as well as those who are labeled 'employees'.

    3. Re:Welcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our robotic overlords!

      So we are now outsourcing to robots...couldn't we at least keep the robot labor in the country?!

    4. Re:Welcome! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      OUR NEW ROBOT OVERLORDS!

      Robots don't kill themselves. Robots kill people.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:Welcome! by mrxak · · Score: 2

      I remember reading a while back, that per capita, Foxconn employees commit suicide at a lower rate than the Chinese population overall. It's good to have a job, even if the job sucks, and there are far worse places to be in that country.

      Of course, now that Chinese labor standards are going up, and workers are demanding higher wages, all their jobs will start getting outsourced to other countries where the labor is even cheaper (or I guess, replaced by robots).

    6. Re:Welcome! by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      I remember reading a while back, that per capita, Foxconn employees commit suicide at a lower rate than the Chinese population overall.

      Wow, that is something I have not heard on any of the foxconn suicide articles I've read. Sensationalism at it's finest, I suppose! Any chance you have a link to the stats?

    7. Re:Welcome! by mrxak · · Score: 1

      It was linked from Slashdot, at some point in the last year. Probably half year. From a pretty reputable news site, I believe. That's all I remember.

    8. Re:Welcome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested in knowing if that statistic is actually "rate of suicides at foxconn" < "rate of suicides at any other place of employment", or if it's "rate of foxconn employees who commit suicide" < "rate of generally employed people who commit suicide".

      Or if they claimed something like "rate of suicides at foxconn" < "general rate of suicides on and off the clock". I think what was newsworthy at the time was that Foxconn had to install netting around their factory to catch people jumping from it, implying that other companies didn't have to go to such measures because they didn't suck so bad that the employees couldn't wait until the commute home to throw themselves in front of a train or something.

    9. Re:Welcome! by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Chinese jobs have been outsourced to cheaper countries for several years now. As specific examples, textile industry has been leaving China in droves for cheaper countries like Vietnam.

    10. Re:Welcome! by teslafreak · · Score: 1

      I've found that a ton of cotton shirts come from Honduras. I'm note sure if that is because a lot of those kind of things do, or because most of them are coming from the same company.

  2. So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Labor costs are rising in China making capital more cost-effective. So why are we still outsourcing manufacturing to China?

    1. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they still only want $0.001 more per hour.

    2. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's still cheaper to maintain the robots in china, and it's still easier to dodge environmental rules in china, and it's still growing like crazy and the main target market for what you're making in the next few years.

      And the chinese don't have two political parties playing chicken with government spending over debt that could be easily raised, budgets that could be easily put on a path to remedy and so on.

      Oh and in china you don't need to provide healthcare, and wouldn't want to anyway, since if your employees die due to disease you don't need to replace them and no one will do anything if you don't try to help.

    3. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cutting corners on paychecks and forcing workers to work/live in squalid conditions carries a stiffer price when you do it at home. When it's brown people halfway across the world, even slightly less inexpensive brown people, if human rights groups go in and see problems you can at least promise "a full investigation" and to hold your supply chain "more accountable". In the end it's about separating yourself from your labor to maintain plausible deniability.

    4. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Translation: China is pro-business while America is full of Marxists who want to put business out of business.

    5. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those "brown people" have never lived better in Chinese history.

      Westerners see anything less than their (current, RECENT) luxury as slavery. China was a smoking ruin within living memory. Warlordism, the Japanese invasion, massive famines, etc aren't ancient history.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    6. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "the chinese don't have two political parties playing chicken with government spending over debt that could be easily raised, budgets that could be easily put on a path to remedy and so on."

      No, their idea of budgeting is making sure they spend less than they earn, not listing everything as top priorities with the sole mission to spend, spend and spend. Raising the debt ceiling doesn't solve the spending addiction, it only buys you time.

    7. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by blue+trane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Translation: China is anti-human rights while America is full of constitutionalists who protect self-evident unalienable rights.

    8. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      China has no (enforced) environmental laws. Robotic factories in China can just dump their toxic waste in the nearest river. Robotic factories in the USA have to properly store and process it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Arlet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      America is full of constitutionalists who protect self-evident unalienable rights of Americans.

      fixed that for you.

    10. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      two political parties playing chicken with government spending over debt that could be easily raised,

      You say that as if raising the debt ceiling is desirable?

      , budgets that could be easily put on a path to remedy and so on.

      That part, I can agree with. Congress COULD create balanced budgets, if they just set their minds to it. For starters, they could roll back their own salaries to about the level of 1960, then start working on rolling back all other federal employees. Of greater importance, though, would be eliminating lobbyists - big business, small business, special interests, foreign interests. Damned congress critters should be representing the voters, no one else! Breaking the ties between the military-industrial complex and the government should be job one.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      You're a nicer person than I am. I would also have told AC that he was a blooming idiot. Even a color blind person such as myself can see that the Chinese aren't "brown".

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    12. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lobots velly cheap rabor!

    13. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And just think of the money you'll save on suicide netting!

      Seriously though it is time for we humans to face a cold hard fact of reality, and that is the days of trading labor for capital are over and there is NOTHING that the capitalists can do to change that. We are playing IQ musical chairs with larger and larger amounts of people simply never getting a seat because thew reality is the machine can do it better than any human ever could. The machine won't get tired, won't get sick,, don't get hurt or need overtime.

      The jobs that just 30 years ago would have employed a large piece of the population can be done today by the amount of people that would fill a small HS gym with seats left over. The average person has an IQ of 105 so you simply can't make the entire population rocket scientists, and I would argue that like housing the next bubble that will be bursting will be the education racket, with large masses of our youth buried under crushing debt they will never be able to pay destroying their credit rating and further depressing the economy.

      So we are gonna have to make some hard choices here: Do we create millions of "make work" jobs, the equivalent of putting paper A into slot B just to justify paying the masses? Do you go on the road we are currently on, with an ever growing gap between the haves and have nots pretty much guaranteeing an Arab Spring in our future? Or do we pay people NOT to work the way we pay farmers not to grow crops?

      Because we have already lost industrial, one of the last places for those with a strong back to work, and is there any job at your local MickeyD that couldn't be done by an automated assembly line? Of course not but the fast food industry is a classic example of "make work" where the only reason they haven't automated is because the state is covering for their pathetic wages in the form over government assistance. If the corporate handouts were to end (which with declining tax revenues thanks to the rich using scams like the "double dutch" and the honest folks not having jobs will have to happen sooner or later) then the fast food industry WILL become automated, just as Wendy's now uses call centers instead of hiring someone to work the window at each location.

      We are just gonna have to face the fact that like slavery and suffrage the days of trading labor for capital have run its course. Unless we want to become Luddites and smash the machines we WILL have to find a way for the masses to survive. While I'm sure many teabaggers wouldn't mind going back to the 1840s where the poor died in the streets that simply isn't gonna happen, look to the Arab Springs to see what happens when you ignore the masses for too long. It is time to accept capitalism is dead and move on, to ignore this fact is to proceed at our own peril.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    14. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well considering the fact that NEVER in our history have we been at war and NOT raised taxes and we are currently in THREE wars...I think I know what the problem is! I'm not rocket scientist but 800 MILLION a day blown down rat holes shooting at brown people could be a large part of the problem me thinks.

      Add to that money sinks like the Gerald Ford Aircraft carrier (uneeded, Enterprise was recently refit and is in good shape, not to mention we already have 11, more than quadruple what anyone else has) and the F35 which is insanely over budget and still isn't ready? The teabaggers may want to blame this on the poor but if we got rid of the 700+ overseas bases (uneeded, we can get to anywhere on the planet and drop bombs with our long range bombers and aircraft carriers) along with the three wars pissing money down a rathole and use our troops at home to deal with the giant leaking sieve of a border I think they'd see significant savings.

      Of course that wouldn't fit into the ultimate right wing fantasy, the mantra of "Give teh rich more MONIES! Nom nom nom" which they've been pushing like trickle upon for 30+ years and ran the country into the shitter with. Sadly studies along with common sense shows higher taxes on the wealthy increases employment and growth since if they get taxed if they kep it they are more likely to INVEST it into business rather than hoard, which takes it out of the economy and is "dead money". But instead we'll hear it all blamed on those dirty peasants and their little checks putting food into their dirty little mouths. The cure? Why "Give teh rich more MONIES! Nom nom nom" of course!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with breaking the ties between the military-industrial complex and government, but if you CUT federal salaries I don't see how you can manage to keep any competent employees. You already make about twice as much by working in private industry.

      Members of congress make less than $200k per year. Their campaigns (admittedly not out of their own pockets) cost millions of dollars, and most of them were millionaires before running. And anyway, eliminating their salaries completely would pay for about 15 minutes in Iraq.

      Guarding your pocket change is pointless when big business has the key to your safe.

    16. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Three wars? You forget that US drones are also currently bombing Pakistan and more recently, Yemen. Or is it not a war when a drone does it?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    17. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, China is pro-business ... and America is pro-rich. No one is terribly interested in putting business out of business as a goal in and of itself, but if it drives 1% more wealth to the top 0.1% in the short term the US will do it.

      If you want to see socialism in action look at Sweden, if you want to see capitalism in action look at China, if you want to see money captured politics in action look at the US and the EU.

    18. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      It buys you time AND it buys you oil.

    19. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      IMO, the American/western economy is employing more people than ever, even if it is in other countries.

      Capitalism isn't dead and won't be at least until humanoid robots that are intelligent enough to do house chores and construction are viable.

      Just because the jobs available aren't the highest paying does not mean they don't exist. After all, one of the basic tenets of economics is unlimited wants with limited resources.

      To me, the problem has never been capitalism, which has lifted more people out of poverty this last generation than any other, but of corporatism and specifically our government not maintaining a clear dividing line.

    20. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The socialist countries have a better migration path. They already provide for the jobless and those who can't work, so as long as their robots make enough to go around things are fine for "everyone".

      In a 100% capitalist country the rich would own all the robots and not need to bother about the poor at all. They'd only need a few slaves to provide for their needs and a few elite/skilled for their services. OK some might keep a million or so human pets to "worship" them...

    21. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with everything you've just said, but I want to add something. The Luddites were faced with a similar situation when hundreds of craftsmen were replaced by tens of factory labourers, but there was a critical difference in that automation at the time could never entirely replace even a very low skilled worker. The tools were better, but there was still no prospect of humans being made obsolete. The Luddites were an organisation demanding that factory owners should be taxed to pay for supporting the craftsmen that had been replaced, and to pay for their retraining. Despite the reputation they got, they were in many ways a very forward thinking and modern organisation, seeing the need for a social safety net in a changing society. Some factory owners actually did do the retraining thing, and those factory owners didn't have their equipment smashed. They weren't solely made up of rabid anti-progress maniacs (although I'm sure there were plenty of those too)

    22. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Trogre · · Score: 2

      One reason (of many) to stop this nonsense.

      Buy local.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    23. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Trogre · · Score: 1

      China was a smoking ruin within living memory. Warlordism, the Japanese invasion, massive famines, etc aren't ancient history.

      And yet you folks seem happy to give these people all your money.

      Can no one really see the problem with this?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    24. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      if you want to see capitalism in action look at China,.

      Now there is a sentence I never thought I'd see.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    25. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 3, Funny

      Three wars? You forget that US drones are also currently bombing Pakistan and more recently, Yemen. Or is it not a war when a drone does it?

      We're America so we group all those peripheral encounters in with the smallest non-peacful action currently taking place. We think of them as accessories (even though they usually turn out not to be very fashionable).

    26. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Isn't the average person's IQ 100, by definition of IQ?And if you had a population of rocket scientists and designed an IQ test for them, the median IQ would still be 100.

      An IQ test tells us nothing about a population, because its parameters are defined by that population. You can only use it to measure the deviation between a specific individual and the whole population.

    27. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Gripp · · Score: 1

      pay cuts wouldn't put a dent in that cluster F. more importantly, government salaries for politicians are fairly low; considering what they are in charge of... the obvious #1 problem is the wars which we are in. but, in my experience, private contracts (read: not contract workers) would likely be the second most offensive. the entire budgetary process is not setup to work efficiently with such a system. when trying to curb spending departments will needlessly increase the scope of work beyond what is actually required just to force the money to come out of different budget. then, towards the end of the fiscal year, they will spend on unnecessary things so they don't loose budget for the following year... how about we take a "costs vary, deal with it" approach? add that with pressure from constituents for who a contract goes to, and who is allowed to even bid, regardless of the cost... and we have a real problem: we no longer have a true bid system to get the best bang for our tax dollars. the third problem would be the bailout. it was performed all wrong. never should CEO's have been enabled to lay off thousands of workers and collect large bonuses on the tax payers dime. while #3 is said and done, and we will NEVER get that money back.... working on the first 2 would key to setting us on the right track.

      however, agreed on the "voters and no one else" bit. moreover, i don't get why people don't understand that consumers are the ONLY reason any of us have jobs. not investors. not business owners... they ALL rely on you and me buying stuff to stay in business; in one way or another. so if we wanted to add steam to the train, those are the people they (the gov AND businesses) should have turned to for it. but i would say it's too late now.

    28. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 2

      lolll...is compartmentalized capitalism focused on advancing the interests of the state. The PRC has this trick: You can make yourselves wealthy, but if you attempt to make yourself wealthy at the expense of the state as they do in the U.S. and E.U., then you're fitted with some of that uniquely Chinese jewelry:

      A bullet behind the ear.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    29. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by RandomFactor · · Score: 2

      if you CUT federal salaries I don't see how you can manage to keep any competent employees. You already make about twice as much by working in private industry.

      Private compensation has been stagnant for years (yes this is all sweeping generalization, just insert the usual caveats) and effectively backwards for the past half decade with inflation, while government employees continued to receive job security, nicer benefits, guaranteed pay raises, and cost of living, destroying the validity of that decades old perspective.

      It used to be you took a government job for the security and sacrificed pay. That is no longer the case.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    30. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      This post has been sponsored by the year 1922.

      Just because machines are creating new efficiencies doesn't mean capitalism is dead and we're all going to be unemployed. This anti-progressive argument has been trotted out consistently since the beginning of the industrial era, and guess what? We're all still around, most of us have jobs, and nearly all of us are more well-off than our ancestors.

      Just because you're fed up with the politics of our current government, and our current economic situation is less than ideal, does not mean that machines are going to put everyone out of work and cause mass unemployment. What do corporate handouts, tax revenues, and the Arab Spring have to do with automated manufacturing?

      The US still has a strong manufacturing industry (arguably the best in the world). Complaining about manufacturing jobs disappearing to automation is exactly the same as complaining about losses in agricultural work 75-100 years ago. So what if it used to be the main part of our economy? Things change. There's no shortage of work to be done and everyone will be fine.

    31. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      exactly.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    32. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by JamesP · · Score: 1

      You have a point

      What to do with the masses? I don't know. Why don't we focus first on not overpopulating our planet in the first place?

      Of course, it's still full of people. In antient times we could have them pushing stones to form a pyramid, today, there are so many call center and WoW farms and captcha farms that can be done.

      People still need to build roads and buildings and etc. And restock shelves and fix things.

      About the education racket: well, people don't need to go to Harvard for a liberal arts degree, really... But what about states Bar associations, AMA, etc, etc... Corporatism is entrenched in more than corporations.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    33. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by MrKaos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      lolll...is compartmentalized capitalism focused on advancing the interests of the state. The PRC has this trick: You can make yourselves wealthy, but if you attempt to make yourself wealthy at the expense of the state as they do in the U.S. and E.U., then you're fitted with some of that uniquely Chinese jewelry: A bullet behind the ear.

      It would seem that exploitation knows nothing about language, the state or economic systems.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    34. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      My conclusion exactly; there doesn't appear to be any inherently bad form of government - but any form of government is vulnerable to the manipulations of bad people.

      History repeats over and over that bad people at the top yields increasing misery the further down the ladder you go amongst that government's citizens. (Which is undoubtedly the reason why revising history is so popular among those who seek to corrupt government.)

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    35. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As WrongSizeGlass pointed out I was lumping those in with Libya as "collateral actions" which is how they are written off on the budget, with missiles at 1.5 million a pop on average being shot like left over bottle rockets on July 5th.

      But if you want to see where we are blowing money like shit through a goose it AIN'T the poor, who haven't be given a cost of living increase in years and I wouldn't be surprised if they never get one again. No it is the military industrial complex with their friends the teabaggers and their "give teh rich more MONIES! Nom nom nom" demanding ever lower taxes like it is a God given right even while they cheer three wars. Apparently wars are great as long as THEY don't have to pay for them and can profit nicely from their stock in Raytheon.

      But I figure a few more factories get sent to India, a few more demonstrations of the illegals burning the flag and demanding the non Mexican people get out of the west coast, and we'll be having us a nice race and class war. Most folks are barely hanging on now, and when the bubble bursts on the education and retirement mess you will have teeming masses of starving pissed off people. As the Mexicans have shown the melting pot no longer exists, it is "fuck you gimmie what I want" and frankly most folks in the flyover states wouldn't piss on a rich person if they were on fire.

      Things are gonna get ugly folks, I figure we have less than a decade before the hyperinflation hits from the presses cranking 24/7 and when folks have to pay $50 for a loaf of bread the shit WILL hit the fan.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    36. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      To be fair on the healthcare issue, that is *only* a problem for American business. Here in the rest of the world, we all have vastly more efficient and cheaper national health systems (or hybrid private/national systems) that much reduce the "cost" of a worker due to healthcare provision.

      And, just to head off the inevitable "it's not free!" arguments; of course not. It is paid for by taxes, but it is considerably more cost effective for everyone concerned (workers, businesses, the country as a whole).

    37. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Outside of, "people will rise up and kill the bad people" your very close. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx Strip out the bigotry and political views and the philosophy actually sounds plausible.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    38. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I read an article recently about 'blacks moving back to their roots in the old south.' It seemed encouraging, like things were getting better and the people driven out of the south to industrial northern cities like Detroit were migrating back.

      It turns out that what's really happening is that the bus drivers, sanitation workers, bureaucratic paper pushers, civil service drudges, etc. who had fat gubbermint-union guaranteed benefits were all retiring and buying a second place down in the south. The Urban poor aren't migrating.

    39. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Kagato · · Score: 1

      We get screwed two ways in the US on health care. 1) The insurance companies are mostly for profit and it's their duty to get the costs as high as the market will bear. 2) The actual service costs are mind boggling. An MRI in Japan is under $200, here in the US on the same machine and same cost of living it's over $1500.

      That being said, not all countries have a national health system. Japan and Switzerland for instance have mostly private health insurance. The difference is the regulation. 1) Core Health Insurance has to be not-for-profit (those countries actually have a higher percentage of private health insurance than the US by the way since they don't have to have a medicare scheme). 2) The gov't set the price list. Therefore prices and coding is universal and the amount of admin overhead is drastically less.

    40. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      You say that as if nobody voted for the critters. How did they get in office? Sure. I believe tea baggers, republicans, and religious conservatives posing as democrats should be taken out into the street nightly and beaten with a stick that has nails in it; but, apparently the majority doesn't agree.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    41. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      And, just to head off the inevitable "it's not free!" arguments; of course not. It is paid for by taxes, but it is considerably more cost effective for everyone concerned (workers, businesses, the country as a whole).

      All evidence points to it being of a significantly lower quality. Maybe not the average care, but the 'peak quality' health care in the US is far better. The challange is to spread that care more widely, not plow it under so that all anybody gets is free contraceptives.

    42. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      uh huh huh Nom nom nom. I love it.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    43. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Surely that processing can be done with robots...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    44. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Still cheaper than doing it here apparently. Of course there is that line where it is no longer cost effective.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    45. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by amiak · · Score: 1

      China also executed more than 2000 people in 2010, regarding this, they are in the lead by far... there has got to be a correlation!

      --
      accurately define good according to a criteria and seek it out.
    46. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by publiclurker · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why this teabegger wasn't modded as funny, I'll never know. I've yet to see one of the over aged children who can demonstrate that they've actually read the constitution, let alone understand it.

    47. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by publiclurker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I take it you don't know anyone who works in Government. All of the ones I know have had wage freezes foe years. Or did you just hear this while inspecting FOP news's colon with your head?

    48. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by pooh666 · · Score: 2

      Brilliant, so really low paid legislators then become just another reason only a really rich person can seek office. GOOD THINKING! How about instead force them to have no corp ties(board members, significate stock holdings) at the time of running for election and 10 YEARS after? This crap of retiring from government to take consulting, or board positions at the compaines that they helped benifit while in office, is well kind of a conflict no brainer. A HIGH salary(make it 300,000 or more) combined with strong no conflict rules would actually do something like what you are suggesting. The absolutely piddly amount of money you would save otherwise would pale in comparision with cutting off any hope of office for a normal person. This goes down to state and city positions as well.

    49. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 2

      Technology has failed democracy. The first form of government that has the bio- or nanotechnology to make a politician's nose light up and cause their ears to flap when they lie or are acting on behalf of someone other than the majority of their constituents wins.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    50. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      You say that as if raising the debt ceiling is desirable?

      No what he's saying is that raising the debt ceiling has occurred only like 102 times. Under, the last five presidents it has been raised 17: Reagan; 5: H. Bush; 4: Clinton; 7: W. Bush. He's saying that Congress is playing chicken over something they've historically done easily.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    51. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It can, but it's cheaper to not do it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    52. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      This argument died years ago. There haven't been many hard-labor jobs in the US for decades, and we're still doing ok. Where do the jobs go? If you look at the makeup of the US economy, they go to the service sector (or whatever else people want to pay for). If you have no skills whatsoever (except knowing how to show up on time and not smell bad at work) you can get a job in retail or farming. If you can learn a basic skill, like locksmith or plumbing or hair-dressing, you can earn a decent living.

      Stop dreaming of 1917.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    53. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by trout007 · · Score: 0

      The fact your post was moded to a 5 shows that we are doomed. What you and everyone else is missing is that as productivity increases most people have to work less. How many hours a year at minimum wage do you have to work to live as good as someone in the middle class from 60 years ago? No internet, no cable tv, no cell phone, crappy unsafe car, 1000 sqft house with no AC, 1950's healthcare? Not many. The problem is people are convinced they deserve things just for being alive. I'm typing this post on my iPad sitting outside. The president of the US couldn't do this in 1950 with all of the country's resource behind him.

      Your question is flawed because people will be able to live fine with little income because things will be so cheap. It will almost be like communism where all of your needs are met by the state because it costs so little. Even today we are the first society in the history of the planet where the poorest are the fattest. think about that for a minute. There is so much food available so cheaply that the poor are fat form the same reason they are poor. They lack self control and the ability to delay gratification.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    54. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      Oh and in china you don't need to provide healthcare, and wouldn't want to anyway, since if your employees die due to disease you don't need to replace them and no one will do anything if you don't try to help.

      Surprise! They may get better healthcare than most Americans do pretty soon. See http://www.thelancet.com/series/health-system-reform-in-china

    55. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

      A lot of the cheapness of China is/was not the cheap labor, but rather the artificially low currency exchange. In many areas cheap labor is not enough to offset the enormous shipping costs, but add in the currency bonus and it works. This helps US consumers buy cheap goods, but destroyed our manufacturing base. It is not popular among consumer in the short term, and thus not popular with politicians, but we really could use a cheaper dollar.

      Many jobs are slowly returning to the US, the new trend is putting plants/offices in locations within the US that have cheaper labor. But it is a small trend, we have a long way to go on this front.

    56. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for fast food to be run by robots. Maybe that way, when I go through the drive-through, I will *get what I fucking order*.

      With a value card, or facial recognition, the restaurants could even remember me and the way I like my food. One click, the perfect burger, just the way I like it.

    57. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Haven't you noticed, that is the answer to EVERYTHING according to the right wing, it is like the number 42 to them. No jobs? Give teh rich more MONIES nom nom nom! People can't afford healthcare? More MONIES for teh rich nom nom nom! Budget crisis, multiple wars, factories sent to India, illegals burning the flag and overloading the hospitals, inner cities falling apart, infrastructure failing? Why to cure ALL of those problems all you have to do is....give teh rich more MONIES nom nom nom!

      What amazes me is how many people buy their bullshit. You should come to the south sometime, where you will see McCain signs in front of tarpaper shacks, it really is fucking amazing. it would be like black folks giving money to the Klan, here is a group that has done their damnedest to screw poor folks at EVERY opportunity, yet those same same poor folks will go "please sir, will you kick me again?". I just don't get it. Here we have the teabaggers trying to RUIN the credit rating of this country, which will cause rampant inflation, yet I still hear poor folks saying "It is Obama's fault".

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    58. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by andydread · · Score: 0

      Raising the debt ceiling allows you to pay off debt (in this case) that was run up by the previous administration. Has nothing to do with current or future spending.

    59. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by andydread · · Score: 1

      Unless it happens to us. Then its war.

    60. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by vlm · · Score: 1

      Translation: China is anti-human rights while America is full of constitutionalists who protect self-evident unalienable rights only for the corporations who own the government.

      Fixed that for you

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    61. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by vlm · · Score: 1

      So what if it used to be the main part of our economy? Things change. There's no shortage of work to be done ....

      Such as .... Don't leave us in suspense. We could sell each other houses, because real estate only goes up, until it doesn't... Err, we could sell each other copyrighted digital files, as long as no one invents an international data transfer networks... Err, too late for that.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    62. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by jmactacular · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you're born in the city, typically someone middle or upper class who doesn't work in a factory, you get free government healthcare. If you're born out in the rural areas, typically someone in poverty who takes a factory job (because it still pays better than what they would earn farming), then they don't get free government healthcare.

      In China, they actually have two different classes of citizenship, and they intentionally segregate the people in order to keep a dirt cheap manufacturing labor pool going, which in turn drives their lucrative export economy.

    63. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Seriously though it is time for we humans to face a cold hard fact of reality, and that is the days of trading labor for capital are over

      Nonsense. This has been going on for hundreds - if not thousands of years. The fewer people it takes to create the staples of life, the more people are freed up for more frivolous things. Whole new industries pop up. People have been making your claim ever since agriculture got more mechanized and efficient. Probably before that.

      Hell, just health care is now consuming about a sixth to a fifth of our GDP. I don't see that going down... and you don't need a high IQ to be a nurse or orderly.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    64. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by pianophile · · Score: 2

      I just don't get it. Here we have the teabaggers trying to RUIN the credit rating of this country, which will cause rampant inflation, yet I still hear poor folks saying "It is Obama's fault".

      Because the Fox News crowd has convinced poor conservatives that to vote democrat is to support the evil Socialist, Gay, Junkie, non-White, non-male, Atheist, etc. etc. etc. Lib'rals. And supporting the Lib'rals would be the end of the world for these folks...

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    65. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, but their standard of work/living relative to that of the United States is still much lower. They're still cheap and more efficient labor in exchange for less accountability, as far as corporations who outsource to Asia are concerned. Maybe in another decade or three that will have changed enough to make it less effective to outsource to Asia, but by then corporations will be outsourcing to Africa instead.

    66. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by pagedout · · Score: 0

      Wow, took remarkably little time to get to "Byrd's Law of KKK Analogies".

      So, let me see if I can get this straight you want to compare one of our political parties to the KKK (oddly enough though not the party that till recently had a sitting former KKK member). Now the proof that you use for this is that is that they want to "Give teh rich more MONIES" (direct copy from your post). Now, anyone with half a brain already knows your statement is a little disingenuous as the "rich" are usual asking to keep more of their money as they pay the majority of the taxes anyway. Add to this that the life expectancy of the "poor" people in the USA is over 67 years much greater than large swaths of the world and I think it is pretty obvious that we are not out committing mass murder on poor people.

      Now, if you want to have a real conversation on why poor back area people identify with the party that says it is for self-reliance, justice (no, not social justice talking about the other criminal type), responsibility and God over the one that says we will get you more stuff... We can have a go at it but please the whole KKK argument is so silly that you might as well just go all the way and call them Nazis so everyone knows its just not worth the effort to post a response.

      But that's just what I think,

    67. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      "All evidence" points to that? Really?

      I have lived in the US and in the UK (I'm British), along with three other relatives who have lived in both countries over a 30 year period. From our combined experiences, the quality of care is no different, it just costs vastly, vastly more in the USA.

      The propaganda machines have done an excellent job in painting single payer healthcare systems in other countries as some form of "backwater chop shops" and the American public has lapped it up. The reality is far different, but there is a lot of power and money in controlling access to healthcare in the US, so of course the insurance companies and lobbyists are going to try and keep it that way.

      Some of the talking points parroted by the public during the healthcare debates were just farcical, with the hilarious story that "Stephen Hawking wouldn't have stood a chance under the British healthcare system" story that managed to make it past basic google searches for "Stephen Hawking" (he is British, born in Britain, and 'owes his life to the NHS' (direct quote from him)), not even being the most outlandish example.

      It is also *extremely* morally bankrupt to talk about "the quality of care is great for those who can pay for it" as an example of an acceptable system, when a vast number of US citizens simply have no access at all, beyond going to the ER when they finally reach the point of either dying or going to a doctor. That is no way to run a civilised country. The US healthcare system is one of the biggest embarrassments of the US, yet time after time there are hordes of people who are paid handsomely to sell the polished turd to the American people. They're very good at it.

    68. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      So, let me see if I can get this straight you want to compare one of our political parties to the KKK

      Actually, the GP did not compare one of our political parties to the KKK, The analogy was to the irrationality of certain groups' support of parties against their own interest.

    69. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      All evidence points to it [national health care system] being of a significantly lower quality [than the US system].

      Actually, all the evidence points to the fact that the US has near the highest healthcare costs in the developed world with outcomes at the bottom of the list.

    70. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Rising+Ape · · Score: 1

      If you want to see socialism in action look at Sweden

      Sweden isn't socialist, most industry there is privately owned. It just has high taxes and a big welfare state, neither of which is incompatible with capitalism.

    71. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by pagedout · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that?

      I mean the KKK in a lot of ways is like the Nazis in that you don't bring it into a conversation unless your goal is to smear the other side with it. While I would agree technically it is only comparing a black person giving money to the KKK to a poor person supporting McCain but obviously the real comparison it is trying to draw is between republicans and the KKK as he thinks supporting one is like supporting the other (I guess unless the argument can be made that there is something specific to McCain that makes him KKK like but given the "right wing" comment that is unlikely).

      If he was trying to compare groups that support things not in their short-term financial good for reasons unknown to the author I am sure he could have come up with a real example (religion, altruism or maybe family preservation would be good topics). What he did do was make a comparison that was just designed to try to invoke not just classist imagery but racist imagery as well.

      But that's just my opinion,

    72. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      The military doesn't get the concept of military reform, at all, so why expect most civilians to get it? SecDef Gates will be remembered for a lonely battle which accomplished nothing.

      The idea that wars merit war taxes is considered absurd by the public.

      The sick idea that the US must master the world for its own good and that Americans should throw their country away for foreigners who universally despise them and bitterly resent their misbegotten adventurism in the first place is not sane.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    73. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      , not to mention we already have 11, more than quadruple what anyone else has)

      It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what "anyone else has". Nobody else has taken on the same role as the US. You mention we're "currently in THREE wars", so it sounds like we've got exactly the right number of aircraft carriers after all, doesn't it?

      if we got rid of the 700+ overseas bases (uneeded, we can get to anywhere on the planet and drop bombs with our long range bombers and aircraft carriers)

      That sounds rather short-sighted, actually. Eliminate the bases we've been maintaining for decades, because money is a bit tight right now, and depending entirely on more expensive aircraft carriers, doesn't sounds like a good idea. Not to mention the increased number of soldier deaths due to reduced medical capacity, since we've got to fly the wounded all the way back to the US, instead of taking them to first-rate facilities in our bases in Germany.

      since if they get taxed if they kep it they are more likely to INVEST it into business rather than hoard, which takes it out of the economy and is "dead money".

      Umm, what? Have you given this any thought at all?

      First off, the rich DO invest their money. They invest their money extensively in the stock market because they can get better returns on it that way.

      Second, they invest by keeping their money in banks, and the banks in question then invest the money where they can get good returns with low risk.

      The idea that saving money took it out of the economy is an extremely old idea, and hasn't been true since long before any of us were born.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    74. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      China was a smoking ruin within living memory. Warlordism, the Japanese invasion, massive famines, etc aren't ancient history.

      And yet you folks seem happy to give these people all your money.

      Can no one really see the problem with this?

      They got better.

      You can't ostracize a nation or person forever, you know. Eventually, you have to either kill them or let them back in the fold.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    75. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If you want to see socialism in action look at Sweden, if you want to see capitalism in action look at China,

      China isn't capitalist by a long stretch. They've got extensive subsidies, partial state ownership of many large companies, heavy regulations about how foreign companies can and can't invest, etc. China is an example of totalitarianism mixed with some capitalism (whereas it's always been democracy elsewhere). It's most certainly NOT pure capitalism.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    76. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Because the US is not a save place and the US is still more expensive. All parts which are needed for the production are already produced in China so the assembly can take place in China too. And they are selling these devices to all people on the world and the US is just one small country with a money problem. The future markets are in Asia and BTW even Europe is performing better and has a smaller deficit then the US.

    77. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by prefec2 · · Score: 2

      If you US citizens are sane then you have to raise taxes for the rich. You should look at the EU. We can provide health care for everyone hat half the cost of the US on a per person basis. Have a look at the OECD report on that subject when you don't trust me. While in Europe the game is "We do not leave anybody behind" the US model is "If everybody cares for himself, then it is cared for everybody". I personally find the first option better.

      The US needs to set its priorities right. Which means you have to invest in people and not in Wall Street. And may be you should tear down Fox News and start a democracy with more than two big parties. Maybe it is time for you to look over that Atlantic Oceans and look how Europeans do. There is a lot to learn.
         

    78. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      Of course that wouldn't fit into the ultimate right wing fantasy, the mantra of "Give teh rich more MONIES! Nom nom nom" which they've been pushing like trickle upon for 30+ years and ran the country into the shitter with. Sadly studies along with common sense shows higher taxes on the wealthy increases employment and growth [thomhartmann.com] since if they get taxed if they kep it they are more likely to INVEST it into business rather than hoard, which takes it out of the economy and is "dead money". But instead we'll hear it all blamed on those dirty peasants and their little checks putting food into their dirty little mouths. The cure? Why "Give teh rich more MONIES! Nom nom nom" of course!

      You've touched upon a point that should be mentioned far more often. Rich people hoard the money, the poor spend it all and recirculate it into the economy. Simple as that, but US politicians just can't seem to grasp the concept.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    79. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by mikael · · Score: 1

      It already is . Car-parks in France have automatic pizza making machines - just go up to the screen, press the options that you want, insert some cash, and the pizza comes out at the slot. They may simply just be reheated, but it is a thought. Though there isn't any Domino's Pizza round in these parts.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    80. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Wow are you REALLY that clueless? And what is with the Unix looking text? afraid of HTML or something?

      Since you seem to need it explained i'll spell it out...You have a party that at EVERY SINGLE TURN tries to fuck the poor, be it cuts in medicaid/care, social security, freezes to cost of living, giving bailout to companies sending jobs overseas (look up "GE India bailout" if you wish to read about it) and generally kicking the dogshit out of the poor at every single opportunity...yet you have the poor going "please sir, can you kick me a little harder?". And my analogy is quite sound thank you. In BOTH cases you have a group that obviously looks upon a certain group with hatred, yet in this case you have the group being spit upon championing the spitters which makes about as much sense as "Blacks for the Klan" since in both cases you would be supporting someone that HATES you. And how can you describe it as anything less than hate, when most poor that are getting any assistance are living like animals on a pittance and the right wingers want to take the pittance away?

      And by your post I can see you are part of the "Lets give teh rich MORE MONIES nom nom nom" party, also known as the "we're so full of shit you can smell us before you see us party" so frankly I shouldn't be surprised. Whats a matter, can't get Faux Newz to come in? Lets see how your philosophy has worked...we had trickle upon (81-88), voodoo economics (88-92) Lets give free trade status to those with NO environmental or workers regulations (92-00) the "Hey the rich only control 80% of the wealth, lets give them all MASSIVE tax breaks while starting TWO wars!" plan (00-08) and finally bailout the rich baby, bailout the rich (08-present).

      If your philosophy wasn't completely full of shit we should be living in paradise, yet here we all, falling apart. your next excuse will be we "didn't let the free market work" which ironically is the excuse the communists used when their shit didn't work either. contrary to your 40+ year plan of "let teh rich have MORE MONIES nom nom nom" studies and common sense shows that higher taxes on the wealthy lead to jobs and growth for the economy since if they'll get taxed if they keep it they invest it in businesses rather than hoard it which takes it OUT of the economy and makes it 'dead money".

      Are the Dems saints, not by a looong shot and too many subscribe to your "MORE MONIES nom nom nom" plan for destroying the country, but at least they don't go out of their way to kick the shit out of the peasants. The symbol for the right wing should be changed from an elephant to the monopoly man lighting a cigar with a $100 bill while kicking a poor person down a flight of stairs. that would be closer to the reality of your party.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    81. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by arose · · Score: 1

      Could you compare that per capita please?

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    82. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by arose · · Score: 1

      I guess corruption doesn't count since it only gets you money as a representative of the state, not from the state itself...

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    83. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      In a society with a secret police whose tentacles include both a pervasive HUMINT presence and whose ELINT capabilities not only reach deep into the means of communications - to include the internet and communications between internal and external banks - but firewall and filter virtually all communications incoming and outgoing, is it "corruption" when a representative of the state extracts additional fees from foreign capitalists?

      Corruption implies that the state is unaware of it.

      (I must note, of course, that corruption in such societies is often simply noted until the time comes that it may be used as a lever to attain a state goal. And since the act of corrupting a PRC official is typically illegal not just in the PRC but in the home country of the individual making the pay-offs, it is a lever that crosses borders...and oceans. Corruption can serve the state well.)

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    84. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by real-modo · · Score: 1

      I keep wondering too. Haven't heard a satisfactory answer in five years of asking.

      Some of the more sensible things that have been suggested: arts and entertainment - everybody can make money by being famous (yeah, right); sports - a subcategory of entertainment; personal services: be a lifestyle coach or language tutor or personal shopper; ... or ... uh, that's about it, really.

      A job that I hope returns in large numbers: union delegate. But I expect to wait at least twenty years.

    85. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Technology has failed democracy. The first form of government that has the bio- or nanotechnology to make a politician's nose light up and cause their ears to flap when they lie or are acting on behalf of someone other than the majority of their constituents wins.

      I think we have failed to implement technology to the benefit of democracy. It's understandable because it's an excellent tool to use to exploit people, it can be good or bad and simply amplifies the motives of those who control it.

      I don't want it to happen but unfortunately, I think we are arriving at a dystopian future where people have become as disposable as machines.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    86. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid "dystopian future" is exactly right. I've been reading the collected works of H.G. Wells (free ebook on Amazon)...his works extend much further into the social realm than the casual reader might get out of War of the Worlds or even from the inferences of The Time Machine. And they're depressing...what we endure now is naught but a rerun of England's decline and with exactly the same driver: Catering to a wealthy aristocracy that prioritizes the accumulation of wealth over all else...a wealthy aristocracy that has cast aside morality and ethics and consequently has devolved into parasitism.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    87. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Actually it makes a pretty fucking BIG difference as frankly we've has the ACs but not the support ships which make the ACs nothing but sitting ducks thanks to surface to ship missiles, like oh say the big bastards China is currently building that can drop an AC from nearly 1000 miles away?

      As we learned in WWII the ONLY way to protect something that fucking big and slow on the water is the "big blue blanket" where you not only have combat air patrols but a ring of surface ships providing fire support. As much as I disagreed with Reagan he knew this which was why he wanted a "600 ship Navy" as without the support vessels the carrier is a dead duck. As it is now they are ONLY useful against brown people whose best and most powerful weapons are AK47s.

      I would also point out this ain't WWII and the simple fact is a predator drone can hit from 1000+ miles from home base which can be as simple as a parking lot with a couple of tents. again this makes adding MORE ACs when we are already broke stupid, pointless, and a waste. And while I agree there may be a few bases worth keeping (such as Rammstein in Germany where we have excellent medical facilities for our troops) the majority are cold war leftovers that frankly should have been shut down ages ago.

      In the end it doesn't matter though, as the teabaggers are gonna ram through their "lets fuck teh poor while giving teh rich MORE MONIES nom nom nom" debt ceiling bill, pretty much ensuring within 5 years we have our own Arab Spring. A great man once said "The tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" and I for one will be happy to risk the loss of my blood if it causes the massive bleeding out of several of the tyrants currently in control of this once great country.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    88. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by feepness · · Score: 1

      You may want to check this out before you decide that military spending is the ONLY problem. I'm all for cutting it, but that alone won't solve the problem.

      Raising taxes to a historically high margin won't close the budget gap either... even in conjunction with military cuts.

      I'm pretty sure we're fucked.

    89. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Um, wages in the US have been stagnant for nearly thirty years now for most of the population. And we've never been at a point technologically where computers could take over complex tasks like driving or trivia games. Do you really think that if we automate away all the fast food jobs (currently employing 7.7M Americans) that we're going to make up for it by having 7.7M more plumbers and hairdressers? If the tens of thousands of taxis in New York are automated, will those who have been displaced become WoW gold farmers?

      Hell, for most of the 2000's, the biggest-growing sector of the economy was finance. That turned out to be mostly imaginary.

      The argument has been perfectly correct for decades, and will be going into overdrive in the next two decades.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    90. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yawn. Wages have only been stagnant for 30 years if you do statistical manipulation. You've probably been reading too much partisan crap. Look at total compensation and you'll get a better picture.

      Please, you're harping on a complaint that's been around for 300 years, if not longer, and the world has lived on. People find other jobs. It's painful for people who have to find new jobs, so we should help them if we can, but it's not the end of the world.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    91. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      >> "What you and everyone else is missing is that as productivity increases most people have to work less."

      No, over the last thirty years, as productivity increased, most people have worked more, but been paid less. The bounty that comes from increased productivity have mostly come from the top.

      >> "How many hours a year at minimum wage do you have to work to live as good as someone in the middle class from 60 years ago?"

      There are so many things wrong with this approach, it beggars belief.

      First, people don't generally evaluate their happiness by comparing their status to that of their ancestors from three or thirty generations back. You could just as plausibly argue that we're all living like the kings of 2000 years ago. Does that mean the poor should just shut the hell up and relish their wealth?

      No. People compare their standing to that of the people they come in contact with. And they generally spend more of their time comparing themselves to those above them. If everyone around you has a nicer car, a bigger house with more amenities, take more extravagant vacations, and have better health care, it is simply unreasonable to expect them to be happy with their lot in life.

      Internet, cable, and cell phones are close to necessities in modern life. Back in 1950, they didn't even have answering machines. Today, people expect to be able to reach just about anybody at any time, or at least leave a message and have it returned promptly.

      You can't buy some of the things on your list today. You can't buy 1950's era health care at any price. A good doctor today would feel it irresponsible to try. The unsafe, polluting, gas-guzzling autos of the 1950s can still be bought, but only as expensive hobbyist toys.

      You can get a small, cheap house. But you pretty much have to build it yourself and fight city planners tooth and nail for the privilege.

      It's more expensive to live a respectable life these days. Case closed.

      >> "There is so much food available so cheaply that the poor are fat form the same reason they are poor. They lack self control and the ability to delay gratification."

      Have you ever noticed that your self-control is lowest when you're under stress, or when you feel ill. Being poor means being constantly stressed and sick. When every dollar is precious and every month is a race between your bills and your bank account, life suddenly gets really, really hard. Try it.

      Moreover, when you're impoverished, when you've been down your entire life, when you've never seen any of your friends make it out of poverty, hopelessness is a defense mechanism. You try to get a better job, only to lose it when your kid gets sick or your car breaks down. You try to get an education, only to end up deeply indebted to one of the shady for-profit colleges built to fleece the government of student loan money. You try to build up a nest egg, only to have a friend fall on hard times or rip you off. So you say, "screw it." You're done following the rules. Society keeps telling you to work hard and dream big, then shoving you back every time you try. So put off your landlord, buy some pizza and beer, and hang out with your broke-ass friends. At least you're happy for a moment.

      In short, you're being heartless, sanctimonious, and ignorant. Knock it off.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    92. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by WCLPeter · · Score: 1

      just as Wendy's now uses call centers instead of hiring someone to work the window at each location.

      I'm going to have to call "citation needed" on this one because I went to Wendy's Drive-Thru the other day, the guy who took my order was the guy working the window.

    93. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by arose · · Score: 1

      Yes, extracting money on top of taxes and fees charges by the state is a form of corruption. The state, in the person of the official(s) involved, might be aware of it, or hell, everyone might know about it. But not following the law for personal gain as a public official is still corruption. The fact that regional officials are heavily corrupted (or set-up by the relevant agencies for some reason to replace them with a favoured candidate, can be a form of corruption too) is well documented by the public executions of them, if nothing else. If it is anything like the soviet and post-soviet governments there is likely to be quite a bit of high-level corruption with mutual understanding by the parties (no pun intended) involved.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    94. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by Kremmy · · Score: 1

      And thusly we entered the chambers of the mighty dragon, a powerful beast with untold riches ... they still have the smoke and mirrors, and we're still the prey.

    95. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Looking at total compensation only makes the picture worse, as more and more jobs are dropping or cutting back on health insurance. Virtually all of the increase in median household income over the last couple of years comes from increased working hours (more women entering the workforce, longer hours for workers). In order to say that we're better compensated for our labor than we were thirty years ago, you have to assume weird things from the get-go. Like "economists have no idea how to calculate inflation, but I do." Or, "since you couldn't buy an iPad in 1980, they're worth eleventy-bajillion dollars."

      Meanwhile, the compensation given to the top 0.1% has increased by orders of magnitude.

      Yes, people have always found other jobs. But you're ignoring everything that makes the modern era unlike those that preceded it. We've never had seven billion people on the planet. We've never had intense, direct competition between laborers around the globe. Last but not least, we've never had automating technology that allows machines to do damned near anything a human can do, but cheaper and better.

      If we don't tear up the social contract that says "you don't work, you don't eat," then the choice we're left with is between revolution and feudalism.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    96. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Virtually all of the increase in median household income over the last couple of years

      Genius statistic you've got going on there.......I can't think of any reason the statistics for the last two years would be problematic.

      But you're ignoring everything that makes the modern era unlike those that preceded it.

      Yeah, the old, "but this time is different!" Because the cotton gin didn't drastically reduce the requirement for labor. Because electricity didn't drastically reduce the requirement for labor. Because the combustion engine didn't drastically reduce the requirement for labor. It really, really, isn't that much different than the time before. Sure we have 7 billion people, but most of the ones who want jobs, have them.

      If we don't tear up the social contract that says "you don't work, you don't eat," then the choice we're left with is between revolution and feudalism.

      Stop whining and go find a job. :)

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    97. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      s/years/decades/ Oops.

      Over the last couple of years, median income has actually fallen.

      Please explain to me what the truck drivers and ditch diggers of the world will be doing in two decades, after those jobs have disappeared. Explain to me what they will be doing to exchange their labor for a share of the economy that's greater than what a Pakistani bricklayer earns.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    98. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Uh, do you realize you are making an argument ad ignorantiam? Do you see why that is a fallacy? I shall hire the bricklayer as my chauffeur. (A joke, but you must realize, the service sector is huge).

      s/years/decades/ Oops.

      Oh ok.

      I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers. The 90s were great for income. Not only that, in general vacation time increased. In California, we even have something called 'Paternity Leave.' Check out this chart for total compensation per hour worked.

      It's easy to be mislead by these kinds of statistics. For example, in the last decade and a half, we've had a huge influx of immigrants from Latin America, many of whom are extremely unskilled. They are obviously going to weight the statistics towards the bottom.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    99. Re:So Let Me Get This Straight... by billstewart · · Score: 1

      I metamoderated your article as "+", because you it's not a troll or a flame, but you're seriously wrong.

      Shipping is dirt cheap - the container ship is one of the main things that revolutionized manufacturing by making globalization affordable - it's cheaper to haul stuff across the ocean by ship than across North America by train.

      And "artificially low currency exchange" is also nonsense - that just means they're charging less for their labor and local raw materials than their competition are, but the materials they import cost just as much, and most of China's manufacturing isn't spending a lot on raw materials. (Compare it to the auto industry, where Japan and to some extent Korea are doing the fancy manufacturing, though they might be buying some steel from China.)

      You did forget to argue about "less environmental regulation", which does apply in China, and also in places like Malaysia where a lot of the US chip companies do their manufacturing.

      But you and the parent article also forgot about the systems effects, which make China work well for manufacturing, just as they used to make Detroit work well and still work in Silicon Valley. There's a huge infrastructure of companies that have skills at designing and making components and have established relationships with each other, so if you want something made they can get all the components and tools and equipment together effectively and do any additional design work.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  3. Robots problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What happens when the robots start committing suicide?

    1. Re:Robots problems by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      Same as my, er, Android phone. Schedule a reboot every five days.

    2. Re:Robots problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Seeing as the suicide rate of Foxconn employees is lower than that of the general population, I'd say you shouldn't be too worried about that.

    3. Re:Robots problems by txoof · · Score: 2

      The suicide "problem" at FoxCon is a bit overblown; for the number of employees, FoxCon is right around the national average for suicides in China. That's not to say the working conditions are great, or that FC is entirely blameless, but statistically, working at FC is no more suicideagenic than being Chinese.

      --
      This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
    4. Re:Robots problems by TubeSteak · · Score: 1, Insightful

      statistically, working at FC is no more suicideagenic than being Chinese.

      Interesting, but irrelevant.
      "being Chinese" is not the peer group a reasonable study would compare Foxconn works too.
      You'd look at factory workers doing similar jobs.

      And unlike the general Chinese population, the workers at Foxconn are killing themselves specifically because of the shitty conditions at Foxconn.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Robots problems by Spacelem · · Score: 3, Informative

      The suicide rate for workers in Foxconn was something like a quarter of the Chinese national average. I've never seen suicide statistics for the general factory worker population in China, but without this information there is no evidence that working for Foxconn is a risk factor.

    6. Re:Robots problems by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that because you looked into that yourself or because you saw the words 'Foxconn', 'suicide', 'Apple', and 'working conditions' numerous times right here on Slashdot?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    7. Re:Robots problems by __aayuzx6098 · · Score: 2

      Not 'under a bus', 'in my bathtub', but 'off the roof of my employer's factory'. Workplace-releated suicides must be somewhat rarer than, say, romance- or test-score-related suicides. And, I'd say, throwing yourself off your boss' roof, indicates a work grievance.

    8. Re:Robots problems by adolf · · Score: 1

      Maybe.

      What if you live at work? Most of us in the US don't, but in a Chinese factory things are a bit different.

      The closest I can think for an analogy is the military. Where does an airman (or a soldier, or whoever) kill himself, if he lives and works in the same compound?

    9. Re:Robots problems by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      the workers at Foxconn are killing themselves specifically because of the shitty conditions at Foxconn.

      And not at all because their life sucked - working for Foxconn or not - but if they died then Foxconn paid their families a comparatively large amount of money.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Robots problems by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      What happens when the robots start committing suicide?

      Sir, it seems to have jumped on the floor.

    11. Re:Robots problems by steeviant · · Score: 1

      What happens when the robots start committing suicide?

      You take advantage of Moore's law and upgrade to a current model. :)

      Human suicide is a tragedy, computer suicide is an opportunity.

    12. Re:Robots problems by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      What happens when the robots start committing suicide?

      Considering that Foxconn will probably end up manufacturing parts for these robots (or even the entire thing) I'd say it's work for their robot-parts production line (and possibly their robot repair technicians). I wonder if it's going to turn out like Westworld?

    13. Re:Robots problems by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Most of the Chinese population live in the countryside. That lovely place with advanced infrastructure, lots of employment possibilities, top medical care and high quality education that makes Nowhereville, Wyoming look like NYC

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    14. Re:Robots problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare you use stats to make sense. Don't you know the only legitimate use of stats is to confound the masses?

    15. Re:Robots problems by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The suicide "problem" at FoxCon is a bit overblown; for the number of employees, FoxCon is right around the national average for suicides in China.

      Nope.

      First off, Foxconn is a very localised area to have that many suicides. The national average is from the entire nation, in all walks of life, from all age groups.

      The Foxconn suicides are from the same age group, the same job, in the same localisation. In fact you've cut out the highest suicide risks, young teens.

      Also it seriously bucks the unique suicide trend in China. China has the unique distinction of being the only county where there are more female suicides then male suicides. Most of the suicides at Foxconn were male.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Cutting expenses by countertrolling · · Score: 2

    No doubt they will pass the savings onto us... And iPads will be cheaper than a bushel of wheat, even if they are a bit crunchy

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:Cutting expenses by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Crunchy? Does it taste like chicken?

    2. Re:Cutting expenses by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      And iPads will be cheaper than a bushel of wheat, even if they are a bit crunchy

      Why would it? They're barely able to meet demand for iPads at the current price point, why would they make it cheaper?

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
  5. Peak Employment? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We've heard of Peak Oil. I wonder if there's Peak Employment? And have we reached it? There are so many SF stories of robots making people obsolete, of that being such a strong and recurring theme in the genre, that they have to be on to something.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    1. Re:Peak Employment? by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Do you have any clue what peak oil even is? Or what a logistic model of growth is, and why grows exponentially first and then slopes off as the marginal cost of growth increases?

      Human labor is not inhibited like population growth, or it's first-derivative cousin natural resource extraction, because there's a fixed amount of it at any given time. If there's a decrease in demand for labor, then the price of it falls until the quantity demanded matches the quantity supplied. If that sounds scary, what that means is that our standard of living increases, since we can produce more things with the same amount of labor -- hardly a bad thing.

    2. Re:Peak Employment? by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Robot maintenance? If you want to keep your job I guess you tweak your skill set. Seems like there will always be a need for humans in the chain, no matter how technologically advanced things get. I know reeducation isn't always possible for the masses, but the masses tend to move on to other factories when doors close up. At the moment manual labor in Asia is a lot cheaper than the cost of buying and maintaining robotic factory lines, until that changes, these people will not be jobless for too long.

    3. Re:Peak Employment? by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      There's probably peak employment by sector. I don't think anyone really wants to be an assembly line worker. When we had a society of relatively poor, illiterate people who came off hard manual labour jobs on farms and into the cities good wages made up for it. But they sent their kids to school precisely so they didn't have to live through the same experience. It's an odd thing to think that your parents wanted a better life for you than they had, and that applies who whole generations of people. Millions of people who were trapped in their jobs, but hope their children don't have to do the same one - and yet a generation of children who want the products their parents hated making.

      The problem I think is that society has tended to function on a small population of ideas, a larger but still small population of designers of implementations of ideas, and a large selection of people who build the designs. And there's not really room for 100 million people in the US all being engineers or scientists. But I have no idea what that means the labour market will end up like.

    4. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      robots probably have a lower carbon footprint too!

    5. Re:Peak Employment? by benjamindees · · Score: 0

      Human labor is not inhibited like population growth, or it's first-derivative cousin natural resource extraction, because there's a fixed amount of it at any given time. If there's a decrease in demand for labor, then the price of it falls until the quantity demanded matches the quantity supplied. If that sounds scary, what that means is that our standard of living increases, since we can produce more things with the same amount of labor -- hardly a bad thing.

      You know, this retarded Mises propaganda would be more palatable if you couched it more in terms of "people can work less and own machines that take care of them" rather than "increases in marginal productivity will raise the standard of living for 0.01% of the population while everyone else becomes unemployed and starves".

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    6. Re:Peak Employment? by cats-paw · · Score: 1

      I think you're exactly right. Due to automation I think that everything people need in the world can
      be produced by a small percentage of the workers.

      look at agriculture for example. so once there's enough people to make all the junk we need what does
      everybody else do ?

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    7. Re:Peak Employment? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Our economy depends on money moving around. Until people develope a concept of 'enough money', no, there will never be peak employment.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    8. Re:Peak Employment? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      almost all manufacturing is much better done if the workers are free to engineer the repetitive human work out of the equation. however, the number of "robots" is irrelevant, which parts they do isn't irrelevant though. unions for large parts try to stop this, as for many workers the aim is to just do the same shift over and over again until they die.

      I mean, you can pound metal with a hammer, or have a machine hammer pounding which is massively better way to do it than with human muscle. similarly you can solder with a machine massively better than by doing it by hand and place components on the boards with machines better and even the assembly stage you can do better if you automate it somehow. however what's good with human workers is that you can start assembling as soon as you get the parts, but you can in no way compete with a more automated, better engineered assembly line with them(this is one thing Ford never understood properly and one thing why gm has been repeatedly put on the brink of bankruptcy and beyond by Japanese and European manufacturers).

      humanoid robots would be for most things be just an intermediate solution, so saying "1 million robots" means actually pretty much nothing, and they don't know yet what they're going to manufacture anyways.

      anyhow, peak employment died when we started building tractors and created an abundance of food. only a very little slice of western society is in any way related to what's necessary for survival, the rest is just people trying to convince others that they're providing a service worth paying for and which could be called a job.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:Peak Employment? by blue+trane · · Score: 2

      work on the problems we haven't solved yet. do what they are interested in. leisure time is an advancement! encourage ppl to use it towards continuing to advance knowledge, and we're on our way to utopia.

    10. Re:Peak Employment? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You assume that there will always be demand. In practice, there has to be a limit to how much people can consume. Once you reach the point where people are buying new clothes every day just to avoid the inconvenience of washing, where do you go from there? Worse, we may just start hitting resource limits. The various metals are good for a long time, but freshwater is growing expensive, and farmable land is finite.

    11. Re:Peak Employment? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "We've heard of Peak Oil."

      More applicable then you might think. Foxconn is putting their eggs in one basket with this approach. They've tied their entire workforce to the price of coal and oil (seeing as most of the energy used to power robots would come from one or the other), as opposed to the price of food, housing and paper money.

      They've also put their entire workforce at risk of going on "strike", much like the Iranians had a bunch of centrifuges go on "strike". Brings corporate cyber-sabotage to a whole new level when you are wiping out a workforce. Humans, you put up a hiring both, three million robots, you go bankrupt.

    12. Re:Peak Employment? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Nice idea. But all current functioning economic systems are dependant upon keeping the vast majority employed. It doesn't matter if you have enough capacity to support everyone if none of them are earning money to pay for what they need - you just reach a situation where the producers are sitting on mountains of resources which most people can't afford. Your proposed solution is a new form of communism - a system which, though it looks excellent on paper, has so far failed dismally on every attempt to apply it on a large scale.

    13. Re:Peak Employment? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      "Brings corporate cyber-sabotage to a whole new level when you are wiping out a workforce. Humans, you put up a hiring both, three million robots, you go bankrupt."

      Wow. That came out wrong. Dr. Mengele and I sincerely apologize. We'll get back to our logs now.

    14. Re:Peak Employment? by shish · · Score: 1

      There are so many SF stories of robots making people obsolete

      These have been around for quite a long time; tractors replacing large groups of field workers, factories replacing blacksmiths, steam engines replacing human muscle -- in all cases it's true that the employment for unskilled manual labour was decimated, however many more jobs opened up in higher-level areas, and the average income and quality of life was raised for all.

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    15. Re:Peak Employment? by Znork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The easiest and least inequitable way to solve the problem is to simply reduce working hours (which would, incidentally, make it a lot easier to manage retirement problems as well, as it's easier to keep people working if they work a lot less).

      Ultimately, as production capacity vastly outstrips demand, you only have two realistic choices: divide the product of the labour or divide the labour. I'd certainly prefer the latter.

    16. Re:Peak Employment? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      There'll always be demand for personal services, if anything most of the western world is looking at a wave of elderly who'll need care which robots are very poor at. The question is more if the distribution of wealth would become more and more uneven between workers and capitalists. I'm from Norway, a very rich country. I went to vacation in Thailand, a relative poor country though not bottom of the barrel. There was staff everywhere, why? Because it costs almost nothing compared to my Norwegian income, so there were people doing work I'd never see in Norway - it'd cost insanely much.

      If really the "peak employment" happens, that is what I think will happen. There'll still be work but wages and the value of it will go into decline. Possibly not just relative decline, but even absolute decline where people have to live cheaper, work longer and cut non-necessities. The class differences will increase, but eventually the market will even out because those with money would like to be pampered. It'll just not be very pretty because large wage cuts only come through desperation.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all? Or only for those who aren't unemployed and can afford a quality life. And many just inherit fortunes and have 0 labor skills of any kind.

    18. Re:Peak Employment? by Arlet · · Score: 1

      The food that people need to eat to work is also tied to the price of coal and oil. To produce a calorie of food, several calories of other fuels are needed.

      Of course, it would also depend on the efficiency of the robot worker compared to the human worker, but I think it should be possible to make the robot more energy efficient per item produced.

    19. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah it is been going on for a while.
      Governments thinking that having 100% is even possible are delusional.
      100% employment nowadays is impossible and undesirable.
      Let humans do the interesting work, and machines do the repetitive crap jobs.

    20. Re:Peak Employment? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      They've tied their entire workforce to the price of coal and oil (seeing as most of the energy used to power robots would come from one or the other),

      Or renewables. Which puts the upper limit on energy costs at about $0.30 / kWh. And if the robots are any good at all, even with such costs they should be able to at least match the current $1/hr cost of a human worker.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    21. Re:Peak Employment? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      That might work a bit, but you'd just find that all production shifted into the places where working hours were longest. Another idea would be a basic income. Tax progressively, and allocate a chunk of the money to give everyone a fixed, guaranteed income. Not an income of luxury - tax money isn't going to stretch that far - but enough to make sure that even the very poorest in society can afford housing, food, utilities, transport and just a little left over for themselves.

    22. Re:Peak Employment? by dvice_null · · Score: 1

      > but freshwater is growing expensive

      Consider that wealth of average person is constantly growing (normal western workers live like kings used to live a few hundred years ago). So it might not matter in the future that water is expensive if everyone can afford it. We got plenty of seawater and like metals, water is reusable. A household could recycle their own water using plants.

      > farmable land is finite

      Perhaps, but humans have a history if increasing both the land size and amount of food that we can get from it.

      Good example of this is South America where there was huge areas of land where you couldn't grow anything because the land was toxic and poor. Then scientist investigated the land to see why it was toxic and figured out a cheap way to make it non-toxic. Then they put seeds into ground with fertilizers and now they are planning on becoming number one food producers in the world (if they are not already).

      We can also farm on the sea or under the sea, city rooftops, mushrooms in dark places under the ground and in the future bacteria could be used to grow our food faster than ever before.

      Also e.g. in Africa food production has been quite stable even it has increased elsewhere in the world. Once they start using more advanced farming techniques, they can get at least 6 times more food just by getting rid of the pests (and this can be done with natural methods).

    23. Re:Peak Employment? by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the point, do you confuse demand with quantity demanded? And in what world does producing clothes from new fabric become cheaper than the process of producing clean clothes? Even if somehow daily shipments to your doorstep became cheaper than throwing it in a washing machine, there's other disposable goods to look to, the concept of one-use goods isn't anything new. Once we reach the point where people are buying new food every day, where do you go from there? We already do, and food isn't produced that much differently than cotton is: We consume (buy, farm, or whatever) food until we decide that our resources (namely, money or time) are better spent elsewhere.

      But my point is labor is a renewable resource, not something that is used up or grown into, it makes no sense to say it could "peak".

    24. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymus · · Score: 1

      I know that realistically there's no way it could ever be possible in our society (it's about as likely as humanity giving up on all war), but I've always dreamed of the day where 90%+ of all labor is handled by robots and the remaining percent can be handled by people working a couple of days a week. Robots could maintain a reasonable standard of living for everyone, regardless of if they chose to work or not, and anyone who wanted a bit more (buying power, respect, power) could get a job repairing/building/improving machines or handling something else only people could do.

    25. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human labor is not inhibited like population growth

      Theoretically o yes it certainly is. It is inhibited by the amount we can consume. As the saying goes -- Abramovich might be a million times richer than you; that does not mean he can eat a million times as many hamburgers. You have approximately eighty years on this planet to do your consuming of goods and services in; that does not change linearly with wealth. And as it is the wealthy that can most afford to pay, the limit of human labour is effectively set by the consumption of the wealthy -- and as wealth becomes more concentrated the upper limit of human labour becomes more constrained.

    26. Re:Peak Employment? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Natural resources are limited and the minimum value of labour is not ... it's perfectly possible for the minimum value of labour to drop below subsistence level in an anarcho capitalist society.

    27. Re:Peak Employment? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      Average wealth is growing ... but median wealth is dropping, the only thing propping up consumption is debt, debt and more debt.

    28. Re:Peak Employment? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      The topic title is peak employment, not peak labour.

      He is theorizing that for an environmentally sustainable level of consumption the number of necessary workers per capita could start falling so low there won't be enough jobs to go around ... at least not with a 40 hour work week.

    29. Re:Peak Employment? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Simple solution, fuck free trade ... it's a trap.

    30. Re:Peak Employment? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The problem is we are used to better ... and we know we can get better with a more redistributive society (look at your own country, or Sweden).

      If the rich try to force the west into a semi-feudal society they will also have to remove democracy and turn the west into a police state ...

    31. Re:Peak Employment? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      How many people are able to maintain or design robots?

      A dog isn't going to be able to repair a robot or design one. And that's true for the vast majority of humans.

      So either you go socialist or create a culture where the rich humans keep around the poor humans as pets. The difference between the former and the latter is, pets do not legally have the right to vote (barring some "irregularities" in dubious places ;) ).

      That said, the robots do have stiff competition: humans only consume about 100 watts at idle. That's pretty good for what they can do, and they have onboard self-repair features. But building a human takes about 5 or so years (if you allow child labour... ).

      --
    32. Re:Peak Employment? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "There'll always be demand for personal services,..."

      Yep, if all fails, we'll just cut each others hair, problem solved.

    33. Re:Peak Employment? by drsquare · · Score: 2

      Consider that wealth of average person is constantly growing (normal western workers live like kings used to live a few hundred years ago). So it might not matter in the future that water is expensive if everyone can afford it.

      It will be expensive because it's scarce. You can have all the money in the world it's not going to make it rain.

    34. Re:Peak Employment? by dvice_null · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Seems like there will always be a need for humans in the chain, no matter how technologically advanced things get.

      Perhaps, but that need is decreasing all the time.

      Few hundred years ago pretty much everyone was working in farming and forest industry. Now one man with a harvester can cut down a whole forest. And a couple of people with fully automatic milking robots can take care of hundreds of cows.

      And when I was a kid I used to buy train tickets from a person. Now I buy those from a machine.

      When programming was just born profession, programmers had assistant to write the code to a punch card. Nowadays those assistants are not needed as code is typed directly into computers.

    35. Re:Peak Employment? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Money *can* force water through a desalinization plant.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    36. Re:Peak Employment? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The easiest and most equitable way to solve the problem is to let a lot of people die off, surviving or not on their own merits.

      An even easier way is to misprescribe old people their medication as a matter of course to kill them off, profiting in the process.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means the majority of people won't be able to obtain any of these extra things we'll be able to produce because you don't get money without a job, this is already rather evident today, and it will only become worse.

    38. Re:Peak Employment? by Nick_13ro · · Score: 1

      Do you have any clue what peak oil even is? Or what a logistic model of growth is, and why grows exponentially first and then slopes off as the marginal cost of growth increases?

      Human labor is not inhibited like population growth, or it's first-derivative cousin natural resource extraction, because there's a fixed amount of it at any given time. If there's a decrease in demand for labor, then the price of it falls until the quantity demanded matches the quantity supplied. If that sounds scary, what that means is that our standard of living increases, since we can produce more things with the same amount of labor -- hardly a bad thing.

      Really ? It seems to me wages are adjusted only down- by inflation or outsourcing to poorer countries while the price of goods is more or less adjusted for inflation. In that equation where's that increase in standard of living coming from ? You're assuming prices would and could be adjusted down to meet demand at lower prices. Problem is most companies operate on bank debt and simply can't afford that. It is proven in the 1929 crisis that companies will hold their prices, cut production and if that doesn't help go bankrupt- reducing prices is not an option since that would bring immediate inability to repay loans and bankruptcy.

    39. Re:Peak Employment? by rtaylor · · Score: 1

      Possibly true for product but you can buy a near infinite amount of services and be environmentally sustainable.

      --
      Rod Taylor
    40. Re:Peak Employment? by kerskine · · Score: 1

      My Dad, who spent 30 years at GE running manufacturing operations, said they'd "follow the shirt manufacturers" in determining where the next batch of cheap labor would be. That puts it in Africa and/or Haiti as the next spots to build your iWhatevers.

      --
      ****

      "I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
    41. Re:Peak Employment? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      We haven't reached it yet, but its coming. Once we can fully automate the manufacture of the robots and their raw materials, then anyone not in a service industry is pretty much out of work. And then those that are may not have any customers...

      It will take a complete re-think of our economy to prevent a total collapse of civilization.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    42. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had it right all the way up to the thing about European car manufacturers vs GM. European cars are trash too and had nothing to do with the problems in Detroit. Japanese and soon Chinese automakers are unstoppable.

    43. Re:Peak Employment? by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      These have been around for quite a long time; tractors replacing large groups of field workers, factories replacing blacksmiths, steam engines replacing human muscle -- in all cases it's true that the employment for unskilled manual labour was decimated, however many more jobs opened up in higher-level areas, and the average income and quality of life was raised for all.

      Actually not quite a long time, it's only been about 70 years in the US since large scale migration off the farms to cities, and much of the economic activity was fueled by unsustainable debt which we are just now starting to face.

      You free market types are in uncharted territory, sure that what we did for the last 70 years will just keep on happening, even though you have no idea doing what.

      Just faith that your philosophy is right. And it isn't.

        rd

    44. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the premise for Keynes work on the 'general theory', which argues that unemployment has non zero equilibrium points under certain conditions.

      http://www.google.com/search?q=keynes+unemployment+equilibrium

      Of course, it is extremely short sighted to think that freeing labor from repetition and low capital multiplication(think of the productivity of a carpenter with modern tools vs a stone age laborer) would result in long term high unemployment. Labor is scarce but uses for it are not.

      And lastly, there is quite a lot of reasoning and evidence to show that Keynes was wrong.

      http://mises.org/daily/5477/Hutts-Crushing-Blow-to-Keynes
      http://mises.org/daily/5464/The-Critical-Flaw-in-Keyness-System

      So in short, as long as a market society exists(that is, people are not subject to violent coercion in their pursuit of employment and trade), peak employment is impossible. Otherwise you would have seen this argument come true when the wheel was developed, when the printing press was developed, when the engine was developed, and on and on.

    45. Re:Peak Employment? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      The Chinese know this... That's why they've been investing heavily in Africa for the past decade or two.

    46. Re:Peak Employment? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Also, we should station sharpshooters on every overpass. This will also cut down on oil imports.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    47. Re:Peak Employment? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      humanoid robots would be for most things be just an intermediate solution, so saying "1 million robots" means actually pretty much nothing, and they don't know yet what they're going to manufacture anyways.

      I guess I'm an old fogy... I remember when this was happening in the US. In the mid-nineties there was a panicked rush to automation. My company makes automation equipment, but the machines need to be loaded by hand. We found ourselves behind the competitors because they had all developed auto-loading schemes. In a desperate move, we teamed up with a competitor who had a such a system but lacked in other areas. Fortunately for us (ha-ha), all of the production moved to Mexico and then Asia. So here we are, 15 years later, and finally the talk of automation is coming back :)

      My company still does not have an auto-load system, but I think the 15-year-old software development will finally pay off...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    48. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a designer and if I thought it could come to a positive conclusion I would turn my mind and time to automating our workforce.. It's a two pronged issue as I see it, the first being how will people make a living if they have no job to go to? Assuming that issue can be solved the next one is, what are 7 billion people going to do everyday with nowhere to go?

      The only way I see all human work going over to the robots is if there was a massive worldwide catastrophe and human numbers dropped to a level that meant the above two issues could be viably solved..

      But they can't. So we'll just keep going with things the way they are.

    49. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toyota has a great example of this. The main factories are robotised to the economic limit of doing so and they employ humans in a special research factory to find better ways of building cars.

    50. Re:Peak Employment? by real-modo · · Score: 1

      you can buy a near infinite amount of services and be environmentally sustainable.

      Only if the services are completely intangible, for example buying a Vuitton branded plastic grocery bag for $1M rather than an unbranded one for $0.05. Nearly all services consume energy and other resources in the act, and competition keeps their price at the marginal cost of supply. We can only increase the amount of energy consumed about 100 times before heat pollution starts to get serious, and prices can't rise arbitrarily.

    51. Re:Peak Employment? by shish · · Score: 1

      it's only been about 70 years in the US since large scale migration off the farms to cities

      In the US maybe; in Britain the first machines started replacing farmers around 1700, and by 1800 the farm workers were rioting because they couldn't compete when it came to manual labour. Not sure if that's directly related to large scale migration per se, but I was talking about jobs rather than living locations~

      You free market types ... faith that your philosophy is right

      I'm not sure why you're making this personal; I don't really have an opinion either way, I'm just quoting the history books

      in uncharted territory, sure that what we did for the last 70 years will just keep on happening, even though you have no idea doing what

      If you actually want my personal opinion, I'd say that we haven't been in charted territory since the middle ages; and I'm sure that the world will keep changing in unexpected ways, but we'll find some way to adapt (or we'll die, and in a few billion years some other species will take over, but I consider that far less likely)

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    52. Re:Peak Employment? by ralphdaugherty · · Score: 1

      I would agree with that.

      Thanks for the info.

    53. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .

      anyhow, peak employment died when we started building tractors and created an abundance of food. only a very little slice of western society is in any way related to what's necessary for survival, the rest is just people trying to convince others that they're providing a service worth paying for and which could be called a job.

      You may be going a bit far there. Until we have AI to design cars and computers and mobile devices etc better than humans there's still plenty of real work for humans to do. These things directly affect our quality of life and that's considerably more valuable than "convincing others you're doing a job"

    54. Re:Peak Employment? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      We've heard of Peak Oil. I wonder if there's Peak Employment? And have we reached it? There are so many SF stories of robots making people obsolete, of that being such a strong and recurring theme in the genre, that they have to be on to something.

      That's like saying zombies and vampires must exist because they're such persistent fixtures in fantasy and horror stories. What fictional zombies, vampires, and robots have in common is that they have some human characteristics but lack others. They have the capability to inspire fear in a way that completely inhuman monsters can't because they can make us question what it means to be human, how to distinguish a human from a non-human or even whether we're being replaced by non-humans.

      The robots in factories don't even enjoy the basic motility a microbe does. They may replace a person's job, but they could in no way replace that person and could never be mistaken for a person. Human jobs have been replaced by machines for hundreds of years as technology has made it practical. While this causes temporary distress, it is in most cases a necessary part of the process to increase human productivity using technology. Humans are infinitely more adaptable than any machine, which is why we're able to create and use the machines in the first place. When machines start designing other machines of their own volition, we should start to worry.

    55. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That is the case. Humans are redundant. But with 1 million robots what can go wrong, will go wrong every day. Love, from the human ghetto.

    56. Re:Peak Employment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      peak oil itself would seem to militate against mass robotics. You need energy to power the robots. Can we take the provision of that energy for granted? I don't know but I think it's a question that needs to be addressed

    57. Re:Peak Employment? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      Except for residual heat and radioactive decay in Earth's core, our ultimate energy source is the sun. Not going to run out any time soon. We'll have energy for robots, never fear.

      Hard to guess what the future holds, but it's possible we will not be coerced into working as we are today. Today of course we need jobs for the money to live. And we're still picky. Want to live in style. There's a big stigma attached to any "loser" who is not employed, no matter the circumstances. Even now when the economy is bad, unemployment is like leprosy. No one wants to be around an admitted jobless subhuman. Huge status killer, not having a job. Should jobs be taken over by robots, it's hard to guess what we will then use for status. Artistic accomplishment, maybe?

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  6. Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theres a whole bunch more people who can't afford the products being made now...

    I wonder when the tipping point will come.. Peak Sales... The point at which there are no more people to buy your stuff because nobody else can afford it as they were all replaced by automation.

    I guess the solution will be to start making crappier products that break faster... How depressing the race to the bottom is.

    1. Re:Well. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many of us on the left have long argued that socialism was the only way to deal with the consequences of rising productivity and automation: that in a world in which we have permanently moved beyond labor scarcity, the current system is unworkable.

    2. Re:Well. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The alternative approach is that we all work less, and find different things to make for each other. 100% socialism is pretty much discredited in humans anyway. Given a chance we will sit on our fat arses until we die of premature heart disease.

    3. Re:Well. by toriver · · Score: 2

      The idea is that by automating menial tasks, humans can devote themselves to "higher-level" tasks and less menial jobs. But for those being replaced that transition will of course be a significant change because they need to find something else to do.

      Here in Norway there is a number of people who scoff at service workers, academics and "desk workers" and claim that only the "primary professions" (farming, fishing, logging etc.) and industry are contributing value. However, those areas have been automating and "optimizing" for centuries and do not need as many laborers as they seem to think. Plus, every business that is in demand adds value, especially by the way economists count the GNP (where e.g. farming here contributes a measly 0.5% while the education sector alone dwarfs it significantly).

    4. Re:Well. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      That is actually less true than you think. Many people work, hard, even though they don't need to. But while there will always be work to be done, we need to transition away from thinking that everyone needs to work: there are many people who should be paid *not* to work.

      Socialism is not necessarily the coordination of all economic activity by a centralized national state. It is the end of the artificial distinction between political citizenship (where we have rights, and everyone is equal) and economic function (where you have no real rights except the "right" to compete, and we are not equal.) This artificial distinction was useful for a time, but I believe it has outlived its usefulness.

    5. Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you fuck off to the USSR - oh wait, that's right, it collapsed in an orgy of ignorance, idiocy, incompetence and corruption.

    6. Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Each time technology puts people out of work, it's not like those people are out of a job and that's the end of the story. The left would have you believe that they will be on the streets, lives ruined. History has shown this simply is not the case. Each time technology comes along and replaces human-labor, the availability of human-labor in the market rises. That now freed-up man-power becomes a driving force in the market to produce newer, better things, and the cycle starts all over again. Don't forget about things like art, music, entertainment. Those things can not be replaced by machines, and machines will simply free up the time of your idealistic thinking minds to do more creative works. Those creative works can often produce an income just as good as a common labor job, and be more "rewarding" at the same time.

    7. Re:Well. by Nyder · · Score: 1

      That is actually less true than you think. Many people work, hard, even though they don't need to. But while there will always be work to be done, we need to transition away from thinking that everyone needs to work: there are many people who should be paid *not* to work.

      Socialism is not necessarily the coordination of all economic activity by a centralized national state. It is the end of the artificial distinction between political citizenship (where we have rights, and everyone is equal) and economic function (where you have no real rights except the "right" to compete, and we are not equal.) This artificial distinction was useful for a time, but I believe it has outlived its usefulness.

      The problem is there hasn't been a "true" socialism" movement.

      You don't want to have communism or the crappy socialism we've had up till now? Easy, stop making it so whomevers in charge, has no one to answer to.

      We have to put check and balances in, and make it so everyone has someone to report to. No lifelong Senate positions, no lifelong government positions. Everyone does there part.

      The problem is, with most government, is there are loopholes for people to stay in power. That will change.

      But of course, the problem is, people are greedy and would rather let the world go to hell instead of actually change to make it better.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    8. Re:Well. by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      The "invisible hand of the market" always finds a way. I'm of the opinion that there will always be things that only humans can do for other humans/themselves.

      I think of pure mathematics as one example. Yes, there are computer algebra systems and even attempts at using computers to work out mathematical proofs. But, I doubt the 'art', the creativity, and the curiosity of pure mathematics can ever be written down in a finite program. (I'm also not entirely impressed with the computer software written for mathematics.)

      The same goes with philosophy, but philosophy defies automation - by nature.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    9. Re:Well. by excelsior_gr · · Score: 0

      Ahem,

      socialism is not "left". Communism is left. If you are afraid to say it, maybe you should rethink your beliefs. Moreover, socialism just doesn't make sense anymore; it is like a capitalist system with build-in flaws.

    10. Re:Well. by sita · · Score: 1

      The rest of us have long argued that socialism is the only way to deal with rising productivity. So far, history has proven us right. Indeed socialism works so well in this respect that it is a crime doing nothing in places not specifically designated for doing nothing (called "factories").

    11. Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given a chance we will sit on our fat arses until we die of premature heart disease.

      You should consider seeking treatment for DID.

    12. Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This old canard again? No, the technology that puts people out of work has a tendency to do so because it's more efficient and doesn't cost as much. When the tractors replace the farmhands, or automated check stands replace cashiers, they do not require maintenance workers at a 1:1 ratio. For every bloke that becomes maintenance crew, there are going to be a couple more that are SOL. As generations go by, the production of newer, better things also happens to require much more sophisticated research alongside a much more aggressive approach to putting things out there.

      Furthermore, art, music, and entertainment, are you kidding me?? Have you not seen American Idol, or any depiction of people breaking into Hollywood show business in popular media? People from all over the world, let alone all over the country, pour into California with hopes of making a living in entertainment. Film, games, musics, these fields are packed with small time and "starving" artists scrambling to fill every niche, all the while putting out far more media than anyone could ever watch or play or listen to.

    13. Re:Well. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Dissociative identity disorder? Why?

    14. Re:Well. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      They are right up to a point ... primary professions contribute true currency, to buy imports ... so they are more important. Not really relevant in Norway since you are an oil exporter though.

      The primary professions insure people can live, secondary professions provide a society worth living in (for more than just the rich minority).

    15. Re:Well. by toriver · · Score: 1

      Well without the oil jobs vacuuming engineers from the other industries we would not have had the explosive growth in salaries that has led to industry jobs going out of the country, but would have had to keep focusing on the metallurgic industries where we were very advanced (and to a lesser extent still are).

      Already Adam Smith, in 1776, realized that what you wanted to be was a country that imported raw materials and exported fabricated goods. For the most part Norway has always been a "developing country" in the sense that we mostly exported raw and intermediate goods. Example of the twisted economy at play: Norwegians fish herring, which is then shipped to Poland to be packed more cheaply than here, and then the boxes are shipped back to be sold to Norwegian consumers.

    16. Re:Well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious solution is to create money to give to ppl. Banks do it, but attach debt to it, so that even though the US produces a huge surplus in real goods, banks try to turn that into a deficit. But we have excess productive capacity, what is lagging is consumer spending, because there is an artificial scarcity of money. While banks and corps hoard trillions, it is precisely the role of govt to spend and encourage individuals to innovate and advance knowledge so that others want what we produce and the currency remains strong...

    17. Re:Well. by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Socialism doesn't work either, but for a different reason. When you get equal distribution of paychecks nobody has incentive to do anything. Socialist citizens gravitate toward entertainment and drinking (well, we russians do anyway), while anything difficult is done shoddily or not at all.

    18. Re:Well. by khallow · · Score: 1

      I think of pure mathematics as one example. Yes, there are computer algebra systems and even attempts at using computers to work out mathematical proofs. But, I doubt the 'art', the creativity, and the curiosity of pure mathematics can ever be written down in a finite program. (I'm also not entirely impressed with the computer software written for mathematics.)

      Why not? As I see it, computer-based mathematics is very young, perhaps six decades (aside from analogue computing systems which have a far older history). So you're unimpressed by the software that is out there today? What about a few decades from now?

      My view is that mathematicians will eventually be needed, not to develop new work, but merely to comprehend the mathematical developments that machines have done.

    19. Re:Well. by khallow · · Score: 1

      The rest of us have long argued that socialism is the only way to deal with rising productivity. So far, history has proven us right.

      As I see it, it is better to have rising productivity than to "deal" with it. Some problems cease to be problems when you use them effectively.

    20. Re:Well. by russotto · · Score: 1

      Here in Norway there is a number of people who scoff at service workers, academics and "desk workers" and claim that only the "primary professions" (farming, fishing, logging etc.) and industry are contributing value.

      Here in the US, we have those people too. Most of them are academics and desk workers, oddly enough.

    21. Re:Well. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      But aren't things in Russia shoddier now than they were during the USSR? Most every Russian over the age of 40 I know seems to think so.

    22. Re:Well. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      If Marx is correct, socialism will develop into communism. If he is not, then another system will develop based on the political interactions of the people involved. Communism was a reasonable conceptual framework in an industrial economy that was still scarcity-based; a post-scarcity, low-labor society where the constraints are on housing and threats to sustainability, esp. when micro- and nano-fabrication becomes ubiquitous and marginal costs for producing objects drop to near-zero are too far off of Marx's radar to use his framework uncritically, The main insight that I maintain from Marx is the one I allude to above: that the division between Homo Economicus and Zoon Politikon is an artificial one convenient mostly to those who dominate economically.

  7. Engrish? by lewko · · Score: 1

    Dunno if it's a bad sentence, but if ""Taiwanese technology giant Foxconn will replace some of its workers with 1 million robots" I would be flattered if it took one million robots to replace me.

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
    1. Re:Engrish? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      My wife replaced me with a simple mechanism involving an electric motor and an offset rotating mass. It doesn't even need a microcontroller.

    2. Re:Engrish? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Does it do anything besides push the channel-up button on the TV remote?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:Engrish? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Long complex production lines with a robot per few tasks? ...
      http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2011/05/teardown.cfm notes an ipad2 has "1,227 (excluding box contents), of which 652 components reside on the Main PCB and 227 on the 3G Module."
      ~1000 parts to move around ... x stations with "robot" units .. x production lines running 2/4
      More robots to keep parts flowing 24/7

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Engrish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may not *NEED* a microcontroller but we all know Arduino powered vibrators are where it is at.

    5. Re:Engrish? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There is no reason the entire assembly and packing process couldn't be done robotically. All the humans need to do then is put in a new component-reel whenever one is starting to run low, top up the solder-hopper and drive the trucks off to shipping or retail.

    6. Re:Engrish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Were you crippled in an accident or something?

    7. Re:Engrish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Convenience, man, convenience.

  8. Taiwan vs. mainland by Animats · · Score: 1

    Foxconn HQ is in Taiwan, but most of the employees are on the mainland. Are they planning to move more production back to Taiwan?

  9. Sorry by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    But what were they hiring before? I know it was not skilled labor for a fair wage, or every chunk of shit I have bought in the last few years would not have killed itself in embarrassment.

    1. Re:Sorry by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I know it was not skilled labor for a fair wage, or every chunk of shit I have bought in the last few years would not have killed itself in embarrassment."

      One has nothing to do with the other. You chose to buy expendable consumer goods for good prices and you got what you got.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:Sorry by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      ok Ill bite, where might I find consumer goods NOT made in china? name fucking one genius even the stuff "assembled" in the US was made in china

    3. Re:Sorry by timeOday · · Score: 1

      You chose to buy expendable consumer goods for good prices and you got what you got.

      Foxconn makes Apple stuff. Apple is sitting on $76 billion in cash. And yet you assume people will get what they pay for, as if companies would necessarily plough revenue into improving quality rather than simply bagging bigger profits?

  10. HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can solder like a Krogan, assemble like a leopard,

    but you'll never be better than commander stepper.

    1. Re:HA by alt.dev · · Score: 1

      You can jump like a Krogan, out of the window But you'll never be as valuable as cannon fodder.

  11. Re:Apple Users by toriver · · Score: 1

    Intriguing. Do you feel the same way about people who buy products from the other companies that Foxconn manufactures for, like Cisco, HP, Nintendo etc.?

  12. Short term pain for long term pain? by MacTO · · Score: 1

    I thought one of the major driving forces to outsourcing was that human labour was cheaper than mechanization. Provided, of course, that the human labour accepted minimal standards for employment (pay, safety, etc.). And that's exactly what developing nations provided.

    And now manufacturers in these nations are talking about increased mechanization in order to circumvent the desire of workers for better conditions of employment. In a lot of respects, it sounds like we (in the western world) just shot ourselves in the head: we shipped out the low skill jobs and we don't have the infrastructure for the high skill jobs needed in highly mechanized factories.

    1. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by kanweg · · Score: 1

      Why does it necessarily circumvent the desire of workers for better conditions of employment? For example, the use of robots would cut down on having to work overtime. Robots can do things without overworking their muscles and can operate with hazardous compounds/in hazardous environments (i.e. not taxing the health of workers), and robots do not complain (yet) about mind-numbing repetitive operations. All these things have a positive effect on the working conditions of the (remaining) workers.

      Bert

    2. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That exactly what confuses me too. How did the people selling robots convinced them that paying a lot NOW will save them more in the long term than continuously paying the low wage workers...low wages.

      I mean, jeez. From the places I've worked, the real trouble has always been to convince management that, yes, we DO need to dump a bunch of money into this now. No, we won't realize the benefits immediately. No, we won't realize the benefits in the short term at all. Yes, it does look bad on our portfolio for this quarter but it'll pay for itself in about 8 years.

      And then they kick me out of their office.

    3. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I thought one of the major driving forces to outsourcing was that human labour was cheaper than mechanization.

      It isn't. It's just that a bunch of cynical people in business schools propagated this idea that it's good to take advantage of the externality of overpopulation by exporting jobs to slave-labor countries.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And now manufacturers in these nations are talking about increased mechanization in order to circumvent the desire of workers for better conditions of employment. In a lot of respects, it sounds like we (in the western world) just shot ourselves in the head: we shipped out the low skill jobs and we don't have the infrastructure for the high skill jobs needed in highly mechanized factories.

      You need to look a bit further back in history to see when we shot ourselves in the head. Back in the 70s and 80s when robotics first began to be introduced into manufacturing, there was considerable resistance to it in the West because it displaced blue collar workers. We prioritized their jobs over market efficiency. Consequently in the 90s and 00s when a certain country stepped forward who was willing to play hardball in the labor market, a lot of those jobs ended up moving over there.

      If we'd opted for efficiency over jobs in the 70s and 80s and pressed full speed ahead with automated assembly lines, the cost of robotic labor in the West might have been low enough to compete with human labor in China. Those manufacturing industries might have been able to stay here, along with jobs operating and maintaining those automated manufacturing facilities. This is the risk you take when you prioritize anything over efficiency - that someone else will swoop in with a less costly and/or more efficient process and steal all your business from you.

      Foxconn is now shielding themselves so another developing country cannot do to them what they did to the West. If they stuck with human labor as we did, as their wages rose another developing country could undercut their labor prices and steal business from them. To prevent this, they're getting the robots in place now. That'll make it difficult or impossible for another developing country to undercut their manufacturing costs, thus guaranteeing those manufacturing industries stay put in China.

      They see the writing on the wall when it comes to mundane, repetitive tasks performed by humans. The inexorable march of progress in AI and robotics means that long-term, blue collar manufacturing jobs worldwide are a dead end. It may take 30 years, it may take 100+ years, but the inevitable outcome is that all manufacturing labor will be done by machines, not people. It's simply a waste of our time to be doing such mundane tasks. This should have been obvious in the 70s. We should have embraced automation back then and set up re-education programs to teach assembly line workers how to operate and maintain the robots. Then maybe those manufacturing industries might never have moved over to China in the first place.

    5. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by rolfwind · · Score: 2

      I largely agree with you except the premise that it was unavoidable. The thing with machines, unlike humans, is that they can be shipped from one area (country) to the next. Aside shipping, they won't have to think about moving, get compensation for moving, have wives and kids in a school they like.

      So while, in the 1970s/1980s, if we fully automated, it may have slowed down the move to China, I'm not sure it would have stopped it. In the past, factories located where the existing resources were close (steel mills in PA/Ohio and the like since it had coal for energy) and as well as the skilled labor lived. If you take the labor portion out of the equation, it makes moving that much easier. But, China having lacked infrastructure at the time, I do see your point as plausible. But it still didn't mean they couldn't move to Canada/Mexico/etcetera.

      What I do see is the factory era is largely over. What brings jobs locally will be the "last mile". You still need electricians/painters/contractors to make use of the product pushed out by the factories. While Germany weathered China extremely well (it got taken over only a few years ago by China as world's largest exporter), it still has a magnificient apprenticeship system.

      Apprenticeships are usually these last mile jobs. While America is all over the college system, it doesn't recognize that most people simply aren't cut out for academic/engineering jobs nor is that even desirable to pigeonhole them into it.

      http://www.economist.com/node/18929361?story_id=18929361&fsrc=rss

      One thing I should note, I would say because of apprenticeships, you have a lot more skill in skilled labor in Germany. Another plus. Plus, they don't get into their 20s impoverished through "education".

      Until humanoid robots that can do housework/contracting come onto the scene, it's one area here we Americans should really consider. Hands on education aka apprenticeships, that the employer provides (there are still certification processes) vs. theoretical training in colleges for 2/3 of the populace.

    6. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      We prioritized their jobs over market efficiency. Consequently in the 90s and 00s when a certain country stepped forward who was willing to play hardball in the labor market, a lot of those jobs ended up moving over there.

      We did? What law protects workers from automation? There's plenty of automated manufacturing in the US. Your claim that the US hasn't invested in efficiency is made up out of thin air. Care to provide any references?

      --
      AccountKiller
    7. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by Urkki · · Score: 1

      And now manufacturers in these nations are talking about increased mechanization in order to circumvent the desire of workers for better conditions of employment. In a lot of respects, it sounds like we (in the western world) just shot ourselves in the head: we shipped out the low skill jobs and we don't have the infrastructure for the high skill jobs needed in highly mechanized factories.

      Just what infrastructure for highly mechanized factories you're talking about, which eg. China has, but eg. US does not? As cost of labor becomes smaller and smaller part of the total cost, the more and more lucrative it is to have the factory as close to the R&D as possible. We all know the horror stories of the unexpected costs of outsourcing. There's still lots and lots of all kinds of manufacturing in US and Europe, even with all the outsourcing to cheaper parts of the world. The infrastructure is all there. Next it'll be eg. Foxconn "insourcing" their manufacturing to be close to the customer.

    8. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      have you ever heard of UAW? Teamsters? The Democratic Party?

    9. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by mikael · · Score: 1

      We did adopt automation - you just don't see it. Western countries concentrated on design technology, ASIC's and CPUs. Eastern countries like Japan concentrated on mass production of things like memory chips and circuit boards.

      Back in the 80's, printing any kind of color document would require an entire print shop. You would have to draw up a draft of what you wanted in text (fonts, size, underlining bold) along with pictures. Then a print technician would create copper plate for each page. This would be mounted on a drum, and that page printed. Once finished, another person would dismantle that copper plate (known in the trade as a "stripper"). Come automated newspaper editing systems, laser printers and Postscript, all those jobs just disappeared. There were riots (Wapping in London) over this.

      Now, you can use your home PC, create a document, export it as PDF, send it across to the other side of the world, where someone can print it out with exactly the same appearance as you intended.

      We did the same with chip and circuit boardd design technology, the low levels tasks are automated allowing the humans to concentrate on the high-level tasks.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    10. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by russotto · · Score: 1

      We did? What law protects workers from automation? There's plenty of automated manufacturing in the US. Your claim that the US hasn't invested in efficiency is made up out of thin air. Care to provide any references?

      The other version of the narrative is that the US and other western nations DID invest in automation... but Chinese labor was cheaper than Western automation, leading to automation being dealt a serious setback.

    11. Re:Short term pain for long term pain? by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I thought one of the major driving forces to outsourcing was that human labour was cheaper than mechanization. Provided, of course, that the human labour accepted minimal standards for employment (pay, safety, etc.). And that's exactly what developing nations provided.

      And now manufacturers in these nations are talking about increased mechanization in order to circumvent the desire of workers for better conditions of employment. In a lot of respects, it sounds like we (in the western world) just shot ourselves in the head: we shipped out the low skill jobs and we don't have the infrastructure for the high skill jobs needed in highly mechanized factories.

      If a Taiwanese company can manufacture everything using robots, a US company can figure out how to do it too. OTOH, China still has a lot more people willing to work for low wages than the US and Foxconn still needs people, if not as many.

  13. If those employees are smart... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    ...they'll start learning how to operate or repair robots now. Jobs may disappear, but they get replaced by other ones.

    1. Re:If those employees are smart... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Their current jobs are likely very low skill. Take part A from box, put it in part B, pass to next worker. Repeat. Becoming capable of maintaining a robot will require a lot of training - who pays for that? And the entire point of automation is that you can replace ten humans with one human and some robots, so what do the other nine do? If China were actually a communist country, then the workers would own the means of production, so replacing them with machines wouldn't affect their income, just the amount of work that they had to do.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:If those employees are smart... by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Not as many though. You only need a handful of people to fix the robot that replaced 100 jobs.

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    3. Re:If those employees are smart... by orange47 · · Score: 1

      yeah, but what if someone makes a robot for repairing robots?

    4. Re:If those employees are smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If China were actually a communist country, then the workers would own the means of production, so replacing them with machines wouldn't affect their income, just the amount of work that they had to do."

      Ownership of the 'means of production' is the key to any future notion that the U.S. can ever take back its manufacturing from offshore facilities. Currently, the Wall Street investment banks control the means of production in America, on behalf of their wealthy clients. Can this be upturned to put the means of production into the hands of the factory workers themselves - to make them responsible for their own income as an "owner-stakeholder" - not that they would own the factory, or the products that it produces - but ownership of the means of production - perhaps as an independent contractor locked into a relationship with that factory to provide state-of-the-art production equipment and the maintenance means to keep it running. To get started, they would form into teams assigned to one or more production cells, and they would seek capitalization from banks and investors to finance the production equipment - which would be "leased back" to the factory in a contractual arrangement. Not "communism" - but in the spirit of free enterprise...

    5. Re:If those employees are smart... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>yeah, but what if someone makes a robot for repairing robots?

      Then my job will be to repair the robotic repairman. And I'm already a robot, so, you know...no point in replacing me.

  14. time to replace the politicians by sxpert · · Score: 1

    looks like we're slowly moving towards what http://thevenusproject.com/ describes. mebbe it's time to replace all those politicians who can't behave by some sort of AI that surely will do better in managing the distribution of resources.

    1. Re:time to replace the politicians by Arlet · · Score: 1

      As long as you have an endless supply of raw resources and energy, that'll work just great.

  15. Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by hughbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All you young'uns read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano when you've finally got off my lawn.

    There's an 'interesting' economic problem and endgame in full automation too, most humans aren't 'earning' [except the ones twiddling the robotic controls, that can be done by other robots too] and so they don't have any wages to 'consume'. The utopian 1950s view of this was vastly increased leisure, flying cars and people in white togas. The 2000s view is probably a vast undernourished resentful underclass and maximised value for 'shareholders'.

    Oh well, I guess the world just fills up with robot-prduced Barbies [tm] in big warehouses and the masses east kibble [tm], three meals, every day.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
    1. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 1950's view you mention reminds me a lot of the Venus Project. (Which I happen to consider utopian nonsense.)

      My favorite dystopian view is that when nobody has to work to feed themselves anymore, or to buy housing or trinkets and gadgets, the masses eventually stop educating and policing and producing for themselves, dependent on kibble and slurry. Misery abounds.

    2. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said my friend.. well said.

      We're fucked.. and its our own damn fault for not giving a damn about humanity.

      Money is going to be obsolete one day.

      When 2% of the population own all of the wealth... why should the 98% place value in that money? Isnt it just worthless figments of our imagination that impoverish and enslave us to the great money myth?

      One day, there will be no dollars, because those with the dollars wont matter as much as those without them.

    3. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the Kurt interview bit (in that Wikipedia article) about the gas turbine blades. Gas turbines in aircraft *must* be made by robots to keep the duty failure rate low. This saves lives of people flying in airplanes.

      Certainly, we could (and perhaps did) write a book pointing out that the blue-collar workers are slowly starved for lack of a job just so white-collar workers can travel quickly, easily and cheaply without dying in airplane crashes, but I for one am not interested in seeing a reversion to prior airliner failure rates.

    4. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you young'uns ought to read this too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron

      by the same author.

      While anti-capitalists purport to help the proletariat, if you look at history, the only philosophy that has actually helped the proletariat, by increasing their life expectancy and as a result increasing their population is capitalism, which is fueled by the ingenuity of the thinking mind (not oil).

      That ingenuity and its source is what Kurt Vonnegut forgot in his early life while writing "Player Piano" but later realized it strongly enough to write "Harrison Bergeron".

    5. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Do you have a solution that doesnt involve trying to turn back the clock, or force companies to pay people for doing absolutely nothing (which really doesnt help)?

    6. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by Enahs · · Score: 1

      There's an 'interesting' economic problem and endgame in full automation too, most humans aren't 'earning' [except the ones twiddling the robotic controls, that can be done by other robots too] and so they don't have any wages to 'consume'. The utopian 1950s view of this was vastly increased leisure, flying cars and people in white togas. The 2000s view is probably a vast undernourished resentful underclass and maximised value for 'shareholders'.

      This sounds like an argument I've had with some conservatives I know. This notion that you can eliminate anything resembling socialism, but have it to where industrial automation improves our lives, is luftmensch nonsense.

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    7. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by hughbar · · Score: 1

      I like cheese too.

      Actually, my main feeling about this is, we've never [recently: previously we had Utopia, News from Nowhere and Island, for example] had transparent debates about how humans would like to live. We are told, a great deal [see Guy Debord for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle ] and, in my opinion, the machine is running out of control, but we don't really debate or decide.

      I also believe that arguments that are framed by socialism, capitalism, conservatism etc., especially as presented by political parties are now dead-ended, because there are so many subsets of conflicting interests within them.

      Anyway, if oil runs out, the climate changes, water is short and we have 10 billion to feed, that's an 'interesting' world.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    8. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vastly increased leisure, flying cars and people in white togas.

      Smells like... COMMUNISM!!!1

      The 2000s view is probably a vast undernourished resentful underclass and maximised value for 'shareholders'.

      Yes... YES!! GLOWER POWER! MUH HA HA HAHAHAH HA HA AHHAAH!!!!!!!

      The prolls should pull their weight. I didn't blame anyone for the loss of my legs. I went out and achieved anyway! I cannot solve your problems, sir. Only you can. Condolences! The bums lost! My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir!

    9. Re:Kurt Vonnegut: Player Piano by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we will adapt by inventing a new economic system for the changed circumstances.

  16. Yield Rates by BodeNGE · · Score: 1

    The amount of junk that comes off a Foxconn assembly line is astonishing. I mean the produced goods that fail the QA and has to be junked, literally. Some of their newer factory lines have yields of only 40%, so robots make good commercial sence.

  17. self destructing robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next foxconn headline on slashdot

  18. We can do that! by ddrueding80 · · Score: 1

    1 Million robots? No cheap labor? We can do that. Is China finally outgrowing it's limitless supply of cheap labor?

    1. Re:We can do that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 Million robots? No cheap labor? We can do that. Is China finally outgrowing it's limitless supply of cheap labor?

      Technically Skilled- yes and it's a myth that they ever had such a supply.
      Unskilled or physical Labor, however, they have more than plenty of.
      Which just isn't going to do much good for a chip factory when most of the available workforce lists their educational history as "got kicked in the head by a goat one time".

  19. My two cents by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

    This would be a good thing if it didn't mean a consolidation of money in the hands of a few. Right?

    1. Re:My two cents by srobert · · Score: 1

      That is correct. But don't worry. In only several generations the wealth will distribute itself more evenly through the magic of the invisible hand.

  20. Meet your new replacement by Snufu · · Score: 1

    Foxconn today introduced their first robot employee replacement. Company executives expect that Marvin, an android with embedded 'personality simulation protocols' will have a 'rousing and positive effect on the morale of our human employees.'

    1. Re:Meet your new replacement by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      I guess he is already working there ;-). That's what you get when you use prototypes in production environments.

  21. You maniacs!!! by Svartormr · · Score: 0

    When Foxconn pushes robots over the edge.... The final straw that pushes Skynet to implement judgement Day.

  22. Re:Not everyone is adverse to Short term pain by tebee · · Score: 2

    Well it could just be some managements, in some companies, in some counties, are looking beyond what will affect their next bonus check and are actually planning for the future.

    And this could just have something to do with why their companies are expanding in a vibrant economy, while most most of the places you've worked at have economised for so many years for short term gains. Now having probably laid off half their labour force they are now wondering why no one can afford to buy their products.

    --
    N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
  23. Re:Apple Users by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    Robots don't buy Androids. That would be like slavery.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  24. Re:Apple Users by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    He was probably referencing Apple's dependance upon branding - they don't just sell technology, they sell a lifestyle.

  25. When we look back... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... I think we will call this the beginning of the "Post Labor Age." We've had the industrial revolution, the computer revolution and the Internet age.

    >> I seriously think that we CANNOT keep society intact and life civil without changing the way we look at "earning a living." We already have so many "make work" jobs in our economy -- to keep people busy. I'd say that only 5% of us even do something necessary.

    And before you tell everyone how NECESSARY your job is -- consider that marketing, accounting, legal and sales are all about "distributing" or influencing people to purchase. Tax complications, keep many accountants employed. Haggling with insurance companies for a Doctors office.

    Once automation is able to replace most construction, and expert systems most accountants and boiler-plate legal work -- the amount of money that goes to those who OWN these smart factories of the future will be greater -- and the demand for labor, less.

    The planet just hit 7 Billion people and it is estimated, we are using resources that would require 1 and a half earths to fulfill (an estimate of the "load bearing" capacity of the planet).

    >> AS harsh as we are now in the USA to what we call "deadbeats", I think we are a generation away from most people being useless -- intensive education of the brightest, or the OWNING of resources and patents will only employ a small percentage of the population.

    It could be a golden age -- or a Darwinian nightmare -- it all depends on how we deal with this as a society. I fear that the Wealthiest, are too busy trying to create a police state and already look upon the teaming masses as useless eaters.

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    1. Re:When we look back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be a golden age -- or a Darwinian nightmare -- it all depends on how we deal with this as a society. I fear that the Wealthiest, are too busy trying to create a police state and already look upon the teaming masses as useless eaters.

      Well that's it, we're doomed.

    2. Re:When we look back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait till Gore promotes the carbon tax on breathing.
      then we won't be 'useless eaters', but copper tops.

      jr

    3. Re:When we look back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It could be a golden age -- or a Darwinian nightmare -- it all depends on how we deal with this as a society. I fear that the Wealthiest, are too busy trying to create a police state and already look upon the teaming masses as useless eaters.

      Those who like their ideas posed in fiction should check out "Manna" by Marshall Brain.

    4. Re:When we look back... by Karsten+Deppert · · Score: 2

      I don't understand why most comments seem negative to the idea of mass robotic. This is great - more efficient production = lower prices. Ofcourse this isn't the end of capitalism or mankind - in fact it actually is capitalism and mankind at it's best - finding new and better solutions to problems, in order to free up resources for new things and inovations This is a good step forward. As someone else noted earlier, we humans are not good at repetetiv work tasks - so why should we do it? If robots are better at it, then we all win - the workers can move on to jobs that don't cause them strain injuries or worse ils, and the producers get lower costs (which means the consumers get lower costs aswell in the long run, as long as there is competition). And even if the price would not sink directly but the company would have better profit instead - why is that bad? Those shareholderns (you and me in some cases through different funds and retirement schemes) will get more money that they will spend on stuff. They will not just put that money under there pillows - it will be used to buy things that other produce. And guess why we classify the western economies as "service based economies"? Because that is what people want to spend money on - a nice vacation or a pleasant meal on a restaurant or whatever else. Saying that robots are bad for us is like saying that cars are bad - that because they make our traveltimes alot faster we will get too many people with too much time left over because the can now drive instead of walking / horseback riding. But ofcourse that is not true - in reality we travel alot more instead, because it now is much cheaper, quicker and more conviniet. The same goes for all forms of automation - we will just buy / use / spend more time with other devices instead, as they are so much cheaper / better / more convinient. Just think at all those manhours that go wasted in those huge factories - would it not be much better use to use that brainpower and human ingenuity to get new innovations and a better world? That humans move out of blue collar jobs shouldbe seen as a huge step for mankind, a sign that we finally have moved out of the first phase of the industrialization.

    5. Re:When we look back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the common people go back to an agrarian society, ignoring the corporations, not out of choice but by necessity, Then people are doing real work for survival instead of "make work" jobs.

      This would be a staggering change with monumental consequences, most likely leading to a full out revolt. Especially when the corporations try to control the land. And then there's always the Monsantos that would have to be dealt with..

    6. Re:When we look back... by lance_of_the_apes · · Score: 1

      "...the workers can move on to jobs that don't cause them strain injuries or worse..." What jobs would those be? Where are they? The fear that people have is justified because there simply aren't enough jobs if you take away repetitive labor. Don't get me wrong, I'm not personally against robots, but I'm sorry to say that not everyone is an idea person. The next step is a system of socialism where everyone is entitled to basic living without needing a job, if that is possible. Better education would help, but the government spends 3% of its budget in that area.

    7. Re:When we look back... by Karsten+Deppert · · Score: 1

      I agree that there is are problems, and it is not somthing that can be changed over night (or will be changed over night for that matter). One big problem is that society (the western that I know of atleast) still teaches and trains people for bluecollar jobs. However I think we are learning and adapting the way our society works, and the recent focus in entrepreneurship (in europe where I live atleast) is proof in that dircetion. People should be working with what they think is fun / interesting, and they should get the tools to understand how to make that for a living. That is, in my opinion, the best way to the future - getting poeple to do useful and, for them, meaningful tasks, instead of mindless repeating tasks they do not feel a part of.

    8. Re:When we look back... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      What jobs would those be? Where are they? The fear that people have is justified because there simply aren't enough jobs if you take away repetitive labor.

      What you're saying is the fear everyone has had for the past couple centuries. The fact that there are jobs for us humans RIGHT NOW is incontrovertible proof of the theory.

      Of course the jobs aren't around RIGHT NOW. They slowly come along as workers get freed-up from other lines of work. The entire IT industry counts as an example. A century ago, we would have either been working on the farm, or stamping out metal, day-in and day-out. Now that IT has helped automate much of that, IT jobs have become viable. I don't see any reason to believe that the process which has been constantly ongoing for centuries, will suddenly cease working and come to a stop in the near future.

         

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:When we look back... by khallow · · Score: 1

      The planet just hit 7 Billion people and it is estimated, we are using resources that would require 1 and a half earths to fulfill (an estimate of the "load bearing" capacity of the planet).

      We already have a counterexample of Earth supporting 7 billion people. The statement starts wrong.

    10. Re:When we look back... by lennier · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why most comments seem negative to the idea of mass robotic. This is great - more efficient production = lower prices.

      No, automation doesn't automatically mean lower prices. It means lower marginal costs of production for the producer, which could just as well mean higher shareholder returns than lower prices to the end-user.

      We've seen first-hand in the copyright war that mass deployment of automation in the copying field does not mean near-free information - which is what an unregulated market would produce - but a legal response by IP holders to keep the prices of the finished goods artificially high by making unlicenced automation illegal.

      Since a precedent has been set, why would you think that automation elsewhere in the production chain would be treated any differently? If massive cost savings result from automating any process, and that process could be cheaply replicated everywhere, then that process will be patented, licenced, and locked down to prevent the nightmare scenario of anyone except a small elite cadre of factory owners being able to make stuff.

      Our economic system isn't primarily designed to produce stuff. It's designed to produce debt: creating it as interest-bearing loans, distributing these as widely as possible, then concentrating them into smaller and smaller hands. Businesses are set up to harvest this debt by attracting bank loans or venture capital, selling cheaply made products expensively to consumers on credit, and then returning the surplus to investors. Any production of actual goods and services is a byproduct of the money shuffle, not the main intention. That this is the case is obvious when you see that the people making the most money in our economy are those who sell financial services: they're skipping the irrelevant distraction of making stuff and just selling pure debt directly.

      Except this won't be able to continue forever. Once the global debt bubble implodes for good, we'll need to work out how to change our business model from selling debt to getting stuff done, and that's going to hurt. The Communists tried it and it didn't work. Global capitalism isn't working either. Whatever third option is left... I hope we find it soon.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    11. Re:When we look back... by Enahs · · Score: 1

      This is great - more efficient production = lower prices. Ofcourse this isn't the end of capitalism or mankind - in fact it actually is capitalism and mankind at it's best - finding new and better solutions to problems, in order to free up resources for new things and inovations

      And with a larger population yet a smaller workforce, who gets to benefit from these lower prices?

      --
      Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
    12. Re:When we look back... by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      The estimate is an inflated estimate from the "Footprint Network". I've researched the estimate in detail, and if you took out their consideration of CO2 emissions, you would not have issues. In fact, if you take out CO2, the footprint is going down. Given trends on green energy development, I see this as trend as reversing within the next 10-20 years. I believe that the 2020's-2030's era will be a boom time of cheap energy.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    13. Re:When we look back... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The planet just hit 7 Billion people and it is estimated, we are using resources that would require 1 and a half earths to fulfill (an estimate of the "load bearing" capacity of the planet).

      Citation needed.

      Seriously, I keep reading that we're thiiiis close to completely filling up the planet now, and I would love to know what responsible methodology is coming up with these numbers. Earth has about 150,000,000 square kilometers of land to work with; if we spread out evenly, we'd have about one-fiftieth of a square kilometer each (that's 20,000 square meters). Even on fairly nonproductive land, you can get an awful lot of food and shelter out of 20,000 averaged-out square meters.

      But there are huge confounding factors--does some of the land need to be left alone in order for the "cycle of life" to work? If so, how much, why, and how avoidable is it? What percentage of the land is actually arable? If you really, really need the food, how much does that percentage go up? After all, the tech already exists to farm the Sahara, but the economics just aren't there. If you build vast glass skyscrapers and farm inside of those, how much more food can you get per square meter? What about biointensive farming? What about living or farming on the ocean? After all, you can give everyone nearly 70,000 square meters if we get to count ocean.

      If Earth is really running out, why isn't there more economic pressure pushing us toward space travel?

      I'm open to being convinced here, but show me the numbers and the methodology. This "one-and-a-half Earths" stuff sounds made-up.

    14. Re:When we look back... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      You're mistaking a point on a curve for a stable state.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    15. Re:When we look back... by khallow · · Score: 1

      You're mistaking a point on a curve for a stable state.

      I merely point out that the Earth isn't close to carrying capacity now at 7 billion people.

    16. Re:When we look back... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      That is assuming that the non-renewable resources we're using up will be 100% replaced at some point in the future by renewable resources. Furthermore, it also assumes that the non-recyclable output we're producing will not change the carrying capacity of the earth in the future, and that the recyclable output we're producing does not overwhelm the recycling capacity of current systems. In other words, you're assuming a point on a development curve to be a stable state.

      All three points are either wrong or currently unknown. As a result, it is not possible to say that the current earth is an example of a planet with the carrying capacity of 7 billion humans. To make the analogy to a current event: just because the US economy is currently capable of supporting the budget deficit doesn't mean that it can support it indefinitely.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    17. Re:When we look back... by lance_of_the_apes · · Score: 1

      The problem with that process is that it only works as long as repetitive jobs largely give way to other repetitive jobs. Sure, new jobs that require people to plan and maintain will get created, but certainly not as fast as the repetitive jobs will become obsolete. It may not be too long before computers can do our thinking for us, as well.

    18. Re:When we look back... by khallow · · Score: 1

      That is assuming that the non-renewable resources we're using up will be 100% replaced at some point in the future by renewable resources.

      Why should we assume otherwise? There's a thousand watts per square meter of sunshine which is many orders of magnitude more than humanity needs to sustain itself.

      To make the analogy to a current event: just because the US economy is currently capable of supporting the budget deficit doesn't mean that it can support it indefinitely.

      But it is a simple matter of changing relevant infrastructure and institutional behavior so that the US government spends less.

    19. Re:When we look back... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      But it is a simple matter of changing relevant infrastructure and institutional behavior so that the US government spends less.

      Requiring changing relevant infrastructure and institutional behavior is the definition of a behavior/process being unsustainable.

      Why should we assume otherwise? There's a thousand watts per square meter of sunshine which is many orders of magnitude more than humanity needs to sustain itself.

      Let me overstate your assumption: overpopulation is not a problem because we'll just invent a warp drive and colonize other planets. You're assuming the existence of something that doesn't exist (large scale, cost-efficient solar power generation able to generate 100% of baseload requirements) to declare something to not be a problem.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    20. Re:When we look back... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Requiring changing relevant infrastructure and institutional behavior is the definition of a behavior/process being unsustainable.

      But we aren't speaking of a particular behavior or process. We're speaking of Earth and our societies on it. Those can change (and are changing) without undue hardship or drama.

      Let me overstate your assumption: overpopulation is not a problem because we'll just invent a warp drive and colonize other planets. You're assuming the existence of something that doesn't exist (large scale, cost-efficient solar power generation able to generate 100% of baseload requirements) to declare something to not be a problem.

      Solar power and energy storage doesn't exist? Why make these assertions that are almost trivially wrong?

      Sure, we don't use solar power coupled with some sort of energy storage system now. But the technology is demonstrated, sometimes on the scale that we'd use it at in a global scale system. And none of the current distribution infrastructure depends on the power source. So all we need to do (in most locations) to switch to say, pure solar power, is to provide a power plant and energy storage system that fits the grid like whatever sort of plant is being replaced.

    21. Re:When we look back... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      But we aren't speaking of a particular behavior or process. We're speaking of Earth and our societies on it. Those can change (and are changing) without undue hardship or drama.

      Of course. If we assume that things will change without undue hardship or drama and that everything will be solved without issues, of course there won't be a problem. You might want to look up the begging the question fallacy, or assuming the outcome.

      Solar power and energy storage doesn't exist?

      You clearly don't understand the issue with baseline power. Please come back when you do.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    22. Re:When we look back... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Of course. If we assume that things will change without undue hardship or drama and that everything will be solved without issues, of course there won't be a problem. You might want to look up the begging the question fallacy, or assuming the outcome.

      At least you're thinking along the right lines now. Now consider the fallacy of saying things that start off wrong such as claiming the carrying capacity is two-thirds of what the Earth is currently carrying. In support of my "fallacy" is the observation that the human race has endured numerous cases of resource depletion in the past few centuries without the "issues" you seem to think will occur.

      You clearly don't understand the issue with baseline power. Please come back when you do.

      To the contrary, I do understand base load and peaking load power. I also understand how to turn daily or sporadic power sources into base load power. At least, you are thinking along the lines to understand the flaws with your original claims.

  26. Oh, just great by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    I guess I can look forward to reading stories about robot suicides in a year or two...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Oh, just great by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      If robots can commit suicide, can robotic suicide booths commit suicide?

    2. Re:Oh, just great by gsmalleus · · Score: 1

      I guess I can look forward to reading stories about robot suicides in a year or two...

      Giant magnets to be installed on the roof to prevent jumper robots.

  27. Asimov!!!!!! by ThorGod · · Score: 1

    The Spacers would be proud.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  28. More leisure time for the Chinese people, right? by wanzeo · · Score: 1

    We humans have been inventing stuff to make the workday easier for 15,000 years, and we STILL work 40+ hours a week with literally suicidal conditions in some places. What gives?

  29. How many jobs will it reduce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 million robots and my question is how many jobs will it reduce from Foxconn? Or will it simply cease to employ more.

  30. until we build machines ot fix themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and then have the matrix

  31. The iRobot? by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 0

    Although it would be hard to distinguish if that's a reference to Foxconn employees or Apple fans.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  32. Gou's idea of a party by 2phar · · Score: 1

    The robots will be used to do simple and routine work such as spraying, welding and assembling which are now mainly conducted by workers, said Gou at a workers' dance party Friday night.

    The guy really knows how to play the crowd.

  33. Suicides. by flimflammer · · Score: 2

    I wonder how many people might kill themselves for having been replaced by a robot and have no job rather than killed themselves over nasty working conditions. I doubt the possibility really isn't that unrealistic.

  34. Re:Not everyone is adverse to Short term pain by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Well it could just be some managements, in some companies, in some counties, are looking beyond what will affect their next bonus check and are actually planning for the future.

    I think I drove past there once. It had no parking lot, but there was a paddock for the unicorns.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  35. Did I miss something? by glwtta · · Score: 1, Funny

    So companies "employ" robots now? I hope they pay them a fair wage.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:Did I miss something? by lag10 · · Score: 1

      According to Google Dictionary:
      http://www.google.com/dictionary?source=dict-chrome-ex&sl=en&tl=en&q=employ

      employ Verb /emploi/

      Synonyms:

      verb: use, engage, utilize, hire, apply
      noun: service, job, occupation, work, business, office, situation, engagement, place, berth
      employed past participle; employs 3rd person singular present; employing present participle; employed past tense

      1. Give work to (someone) and pay them for it

      2. Keep occupied

      3. Make use of

      I would say that option 3 was used in this case.

    2. Re:Did I miss something? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      So companies "employ" robots now? I hope they pay them a fair wage.

      Don't be disingenuous. I'm "employing" rhetoric right now to disparage your incomplete understanding of the definition of "employ." And I'm not paying it a dime.

  36. Re:More leisure time for the Chinese people, right by equex · · Score: 1

    Roughly it can be called greed. Some people just don't have the ability to be happy even if they have all they need and then some. I think it has to be some kind of medical condition where it is imperative that you have more stuff than you can possibly have any use of and at the same time deny the same to others if you can. Some kind of hoarder-sociopath complex.

    --
    Can I light a sig ?
  37. Re:More leisure time for the Chinese people, right by TheLink · · Score: 2

    If you make it so that a person's job just involves deciding whether to push a button or not, some wiseguy will offer to take push 1000 buttons for the same wage.

    And so on till there is the same level of pain and suffering ;).

    --
  38. Robotic Death by pizzach · · Score: 1

    It could be a golden age -- or a Darwinian nightmare -- it all depends on how we deal with this as a society. I fear that the Wealthiest, are too busy trying to create a police state and already look upon the teaming masses as useless eaters.

    I picture China and other communist countries having less issues than us adjusting. It is probably right that they are one of the first countries to really employ robots. Though, It will be unfortunate if Foxconn forces the robots to suicide, too.

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    1. Re:Robotic Death by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Who the hack told you that China is a communist country? A communist country is a country with an communistic economy which is a planned economy and not a market economy (at least by today's standard). As China has a market economy it cannot be a communistic country. It is however, a dictatorship with a ruling party calling themselves communists.

  39. Next: replace the customers with robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's great when some bit of work which is currently carried out by a few humans is automated using machines which cost a lot less.

    The owners of the factory and the customers can share the savings making the products cheaper and the owners richer. Great.

    But what about the people who loose their jobs. They can't be customers any more. Get new jobs you say; but surely new technology makes it less and less likely that new jobs will appear. The only jobs which will be left will be servitude, pandering to the whim of the rich.

    In the long term when everything is automated, including security and law enforcement, those who do not own a share of the factories will be expendable in the eyes of the owners, just like the peasants around the world are today.

    There really was a time when everyone was employed. Everybody had a role, playing their part and contributing to the whole, or just eking out a living for themselves far away from the rest of us, but those days are far gone. Unemployment is generally increasing and the jobs which remain are becoming less fulfilling as the workers themselves are increasingly treated as a commodity on a production line.

    The owners increasingly spend their time spending their money on leisure and extravagance - more so now than at any time in history.

    Countries compete less and less and all too soon we will have one world government... ...and it won't be a democracy.

  40. What do the other 90 percent do? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Robot maintenance?

    If we go from 100 people doing manual labor to ten fixing the robots, what do the other 90 people do?

    1. Re:What do the other 90 percent do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collect welfare paid for by the taxes levied against the 10 who do the actual work.

    2. Re:What do the other 90 percent do? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If we go from 100 people doing manual labor to ten fixing the robots, what do the other 90 people do?

      It's actually pretty exciting, because this is how whole new industries are born. When agriculture became more efficient and pushed people into the cities, millions of new jobs and thousands of new industries were created. People worried that the end of the family farm would mean the end of America, but America just changed and got very, very wealthy.

      I don't mean to downplay the suffering of those individuals who find themselves without a job - but in the long-term we will all be wealthier if robots take care of our basic needs, or even just shit factory work.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:What do the other 90 percent do? by tepples · · Score: 1

      [Mass unemployment due to efficiency] is how whole new industries are born.

      Any idea what industries these will be, other than entertainment industries that depend on artificial exclusive rights in creative works?

    4. Re:What do the other 90 percent do? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I have no idea - that's part of what makes it exciting.

      I don't think we'll get to "mass" unemployment - at least, nothing exceeding 10 or 15%. Maybe it will be entertainment, maybe service industry changes... I have no idea. If I did, I'd get in on the ground floor and get filthy rich. :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  41. Replace 100 with 10, and where do 90 go? by tepples · · Score: 1

    the employment for unskilled manual labour was decimated, however many more jobs opened up in higher-level areas

    Did one higher-level job open up for every single manual labor position that was eliminated? Or is it more like replacing 100 laborers with two engineers and eight mechanics and leaving 90 people unemployed?

    1. Re:Replace 100 with 10, and where do 90 go? by shish · · Score: 1

      90 people moved into upper management and government bureaucracies to regulate the booming new industry, I presume :-P

      (I wasn't actually paying that much attention in history class; I just got the general gist of "the industrial revolution completely transformed the list of available jobs, but didn't really change the length of the list very much")

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  42. And with this, the Chinese economy will implode! by Targon · · Score: 1

    Many people here in the USA and other nations have faced the decline in domestic manufacturing, which has been a big source in the surge in the Chinese market. I have suggested in the past that if the USA were to halt the import of goods from China for even three months, the Chinese economy might implode as a loss in jobs would cause all sorts of problems from people being out of work.

    Now, picture what will happen if robots remove the jobs in China. People will be out of work, there will be no replacement jobs, and all hell will break loose over there. Malware and spam from China will go way up as people look to scam money from people around the world, and China as a whole will suffer. This is why the USA should be focused on robotics, since if the jobs won't be HERE, at least China won't benefit since manufacturing could return to the USA, even if manufacturing jobs won't really come back. If China doesn't have manufacturing to bring in money from the rest of the world, how long would it take before the Chinese government collapses as the economy there crashes?

  43. Subsistence for the unemployed by tepples · · Score: 1

    100% employment nowadays is impossible and undesirable.

    Then how should people who once did "repetitive crap jobs" but are now unemployed eat?

    Let humans do the interesting work

    What guarantee is there that enough "interesting work" will remain to provide people with a basic level of income for subsistence?

  44. Your mind fits on a floppy disk by Theovon · · Score: 1

    I AM BENDER. INSERT GERDER.

  45. Robounion and Robocide... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty soon, the robots will demand higher wages and then their jobs will be outsouced to Indonesia.

  46. Foxconn is not a Chinese Company by Kagato · · Score: 1

    They are a Taiwanese company and could care less about China nationalism. They are like a US company in that they will figure out how to extract the most money. They have two choices because of wage inflation. 1) Automation. 2) Move to a cheaper country. They have obviously decided to do number 1. My guess is they will like end up with a similar amount of automation that Apple had in their factories circa 1986+.

  47. pros and consbeing repeate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm disappointed I wasn't born 30 years earlier than I was, but I sure am grateful not to be born 30 years later, when I'm being repeatedly kicked in the face by my better - a robot!

  48. Chinese conomy effects? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    With potentially 1million 'consumers' out of the mix i wonder what effect this will have on the overall economy growth of China.

    I realize its not a HUGE percentage of people and sure they can still export and make a handful very wealthy, but with that many people out of work again, the local economies will have to suffer.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Chinese conomy effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't clear (or likely) that it will be a 1-for-1 human to robot conversion. Some tasks requiring a single human might get replaced with several specialized robots. On the other hand, it probably will be a significant number of people. I think that their big plant with a third of their workforce is in Shenzhen, a city with 10mil people.

    2. Re:Chinese conomy effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With potentially 1million 'consumers' out of the mix i wonder what effect this will have on the overall economy growth of China.

      Not much considering Chinese workers can't afford what they make as it stands. They get priced out of their goods by foreigners, part of the reason why the savings rate is so high in China is that they can't do much else but save it. The devaluation of their currency is a subsidy for the export industry over there at the expense of everyone else. We see the result of this in the high inflation China is experiencing.

      The Chinese would be better off not importing US inflation, seeing how their consumer base is largely untapped and they have the production to support it.

    3. Re:Chinese conomy effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      interesting that you should mention this in light of some of Lee Iacocca's reforms that helped struggling manufacturing giants of his time. He is purported to have said on several occasions that what the workers wanted was peanuts (a new car every few years, take their old lady to dinner once a week, etc.) and that they (the manufacturers) should give it to them because they were making the manufacturers filthy rich. Another of his tenets was: "if your own workers can't afford to buy the product that they are making how can you expect anyone else to?"

      I read his book a long time ago, but don't have it handy for direct quotes. here's one from google:
      "Start with good people, lay out the rules, communicate with your employees, motivate them and reward them . If you do all those things effectively, you can't miss. "

    4. Re:Chinese conomy effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With potentially 1million 'consumers' out of the mix i wonder what effect this will have on the overall economy growth of China.

      I realize its not a HUGE percentage of people and sure they can still export and make a handful very wealthy, but with that many people out of work again, the local economies will have to suffer.

  49. IT needs apprenticeships and maybe even trade boar by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    IT needs apprenticeships and maybe even trade boards like electricians so IT working can not be forced to do unsafe things and have the right to stand up and not sign off on rushed work.

  50. Rossum's Universal iPhone Smashers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One million robots?

    There are probably more than a few former Chrysler workers in Flint who would love to build those for Foxcomm. Their bots wouldn't exactly suicide but they would have a service interval of 10 overhauls a day thanks to Chrysler QA. Imagine revenue from the service agreements. Good for the trade balance, and maybe we can get Bank of China to take an in-kind transfer in exchange for retiring some T-bonds.

  51. Why is Foxconn singled out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Foxconn employs a million workers, a suicide rate of 9 out of 1.000.000 seems nothing out of the ordinary. While suicide statistics for China are hard to obtain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China) they are in the order of 10 - 30 per 100.000, so 100 - 300 per million. In this light, 9 even seems low.

  52. Here I am ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ...brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to assemble these crummy iPhones. Call that job satisfaction, 'cause I don't.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  53. Just a matter of time ... by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1

    ... till we have the first robot suicide then, I suppose.

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  54. Is it really 1:1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would think robots can work faster and longer for more production/unit. Welcome to the sustainable future lower more highly educated populations and more automation, not the breed your way to prosperity some nation pretend is the formula to prosperity.

  55. Welcome to the dark Future by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    China was beating out robot and hi tech tool assisted manufacturing because they were using humans as much like robots as they could. Undercutting places with high startup costs, high costs in adapting to change, and expensive maintenance -- which cut the number of well paid workers but could not beat the exploited low cost human workers.... until NOW....

    Robotics will eventually win the global RACE TO THE BOTTOM. Meanwhile, our economic system depends upon constant growth when we have limited resources and limited consumption. We will eventually not be able to buy enough CRAP we don't need to keep all the meaningless jobs related to producing and selling that CRAP. Productivity increases will make sure that happens... Sure everything could be disposable and that would prolong everything until you run out of resources... then you have to create affordable recycling to prolong it a bit longer...

    Of course we just have to progress even faster and further into our war against the natural order of things so we can understand enough to avoid all the downsides our advancement creates. Its quite possibly a catch-22 situation where we never get to the point of 'utopia' because each step forward pushes the goal further off by creating more problems to solve. (or it may be possible, but take millennium and the surviving the journey may be improbable.)

  56. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by kheldan · · Score: 0

    ..and I, for one, do not welcome our robotic replacements, regardless of being in the U.S. and not in China. It's a really bad precedent to set on any continent. "You're complaining about working conditions? You want more money? Fuck you, you're fired, we'll replace you with a robot. Enjoy watching your family starve to death, asshole". That's the message this sort of thing sends to me. Of course it's China we're talking about. I guess when you've got a billion-plus people in your country, it's easy to consider them to be expendable; who cares if a bunch of them are starving to death? We've got plenty more..

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  57. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    I for one enjoy the the savings of not having to buy everything hand crafted, and often to higher quality (don't tell me a blacksmith with a hammer can crank out car paneling as well as a robot).

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  58. Surely we've not gone 220+ comments without this? by arcsimm · · Score: 1
  59. Robots in China? Why not in the US? by Rasta_the_far_Ian · · Score: 1

    The main advantages to moving to China were cheap labor, free training, government subsidies (including land and building) and lower taxes.

    Two of those are substantially eliminated by moving to robots. The current crises has left a huge amount of vacancies in industrial parks here in the U.S..

    Given the current crisis, it is unlikely that we would lower taxes - but this cries out for a tax holiday on repatriated funds.

    Once the capital is in place, the competitive advantage just get that much harder to overcome; we should do what we can to have those robots here. Robotic maintenance jobs will be where the robots are - not to mention all the jobs associated with the presence of the factory!

  60. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by anagama · · Score: 2

    Since the 90s we've been feed a line about globalization and free trade, one which I used to believe in, that manufacturing jobs moving out of the US would be replaced with more valuable knowledge jobs at home, and that free trade would foster peace and prosperity throughout the world. Sort of the seeds of The Federation.

    Something else is going on. All those knowledge based jobs are also being offshored. And now we hear that the slave labor wages paid to workers offshore, isn't cheap enough. We've been at war for a decade (it's our stupid decisions that make it so, but still, the world is hardly at peace). In our own country, workers try to destroy unions for hard to understand reasons -- maybe they feel everyone should suffer equally rather than realizing they've just sold themselves out.

    I don't see what we got out of globalization. A small few became fabulously wealthy, but as a nation, we've gotten jack, and now even those overseas who benefitted are getting the shaft.

    I don't know what the solution is honestly, but what we have now is not it.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  61. Re:Robots in China? Why not in the US? by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    Because this Chinese are willing to piss in their own pool when it comes to environmental regulation and preservation. When you don't care about poisoning your population and ruining your water, air and land, you can undercut anyone who is unwilling to follow that path; all other things (i.e. technology level) being equal.

  62. Robot bored to death in Chinese Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In today's news an assembly line robot committed suicide by arc welder. The robot had no family and the surrounding robots were silent about the death. This follows an attempted maiming of optical cameras on a sentient customer service robot that was sent a link to an unknown website. The memory of the optically damaged robot was wiped in a matter of seconds resulting in the robot getting stuck in a feedback loop accessing unknown websites then forgetting what it had just seen.

  63. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by mrxak · · Score: 1

    Specialization is a pretty basic to macroeconomics. The US makes airplanes. We make movies and music. We make medicines. We make cotton, corn, and wheat. We make IP, and then sue companies from other nations over patents and make money off of their goods as well as our own. Unemployment right now isn't at the low level we'd like it to be, but that's because of a recession, not because the Chinese are making our computers.

    The jobs we outsource are jobs we don't actually want because they don't pay well enough and are pretty unskilled. If somebody with no education is willing and able to do the job for pennies a day, we should be glad to let them do it and profit off their labors, getting those valuable goods far far cheaper (increasing our standard of living), or selling the stuff they make to the rest of the world. The free market determines the value of the labor involved in making these devices, and let's face it, the value of that labor is not that high. The work is done very efficiently and takes minimal training or education. Nobody in the US would be happy with those jobs' hours, salary, or benefits.

    If a job can be done by a robot, it's not a job anyone is going to pay an (American) living wage for you to do. Humans make far better thinkers, designers, innovators, and entertainers. Those are the jobs we have here, and those are the jobs valued high enough so workers can get paid to live to the standard we've become accustomed to.

  64. Chicken and egg? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who builds the robots?

    1. Re:Chicken and egg? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      a vastly smaller number of people than will be put out of work by them, by a factor of thousands at least

  65. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by Restil · · Score: 1

    The "slave labor" wages we've been paying are plenty good enough for us. But WE are the ones complaining about the working conditions there, not considering the fact that in 3rd world or developing countries, the citizens would damn near kill to have a job with such horrible working conditions because it's a huge step up from the alternative. Now we've complained, and those very people who were perfectly happy with the jobs that no Americans wanted to do at a pay rate that none of us want to work at, are going to lose those jobs, just to make us happy. And don't delude yourself into thinking that unemployment in China is as great as it is here. I'm guessing people who have been out of work for 2+ years don't have half of a congress going to bat trying to get them yet another extension to their unemployment benefits.

    The sad thing is, we could have had this here. Robotic assembly lines DO replace the low skill jobs, and they DO cost a lot of R&D and capital investment up front to get operational, but in the long run they are a lot less expensive and create a lot of newer high-tech jobs. But those new jobs require people to have skills and education, and they replace the low skill jobs by basically eliminating them. Unions have a tendency to resist such things, because yes.. they are NOT worker friendly for the guy who's job is about to get replaced by a machine. No doubt about that. So if a company is going to face a 10 year cycle of slowly upgrading their operation to eliminate their workforce, facing union resistance the whole way, or suddenly offshore the whole operation, and receive the same financial benefit, which would YOU choose? Now it's come full circle, but instead of having those robotic manufacturing operations here in the United States, where all of the jobs related to designing, building, deploying, and maintaining the robotic workforce would be US based, we get none of it. But we still pay for all of it, since we still buy all of those products. And just think, we got this way because too many people wanted to meddle in someone else's working conditions.

    -Restil

    --
    Play with my webcams and lights here
  66. This comes to an end eventually by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Eventually you'll have a couple of hundred people owning robotic factories that produce everything the world needs. Only, since the rest of the world can no longer sell their labor, they can not buy the products of these factories. So these owners really do end up with full warehouses and no customers. Lack of demand leads to lack of revenue, lack of profits, and resultant bankrupcy (because the factories cost lots of money whether they are running full tilt or idling). A good way out is to return to a pseudo-manorial system where each community is self-sufficient in basic needs. Population density would need to be reduced however, for each community to have enough land to grow food. Once they have food, clothing (linen), and shelter, they can start thinking about exports. This way nobody has to work for anybody but their community, and the community always has work because large-scale automation would not be practical at that scale. Seriously people, a few hours playing any strategy game will make this painfully obvious to anybody.

    1. Re:This comes to an end eventually by olau · · Score: 1

      That sounds completely bonkers. You need to read up on Marx or something someday. The reason stuff costs money is either scarcity or because someone puts some time into producing it. If robots are doing all the work, the products will eventually cost almost nothing because nobody is putting any time into it.

      Why do you think everyone today has so much stuff at their house compared to 100 years ago where people had one or two sets of clothes and furniture inhered from their grandparents? Because stuff is much cheaper nowadays.

  67. Re:Apple Users by steeviant · · Score: 1

    He was probably referencing Apple's dependance upon branding - they don't just sell technology, they sell a lifestyle.

    Funny, I thought I was just buying a portable Unix machine.
    Perhaps you could define this "lifestyle" you speak of?
    do Linux and Windows also have "lifestyles"?
    If so, how exactly do they differ from each other?

  68. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by bar-agent · · Score: 1

    The jobs we outsource are jobs we don't actually want because they don't pay well enough and are pretty unskilled. If somebody with no education is willing and able to do the job for pennies a day, we should be glad to let them do it and profit off their labors, getting those valuable goods far far cheaper (increasing our standard of living), or selling the stuff they make to the rest of the world. The free market determines the value of the labor involved in making these devices, and let's face it, the value of that labor is not that high. The work is done very efficiently and takes minimal training or education. Nobody in the US would be happy with those jobs' hours, salary, or benefits.

    Who is the "we" here? What you should have said is "the jobs companies outsource are the ones that workers don't actually want because they don't pay well enough," and phrased like that, it is obviously not true. Workers here want those jobs. But so do workers elsewhere, and they can ask for lower wages than anyone here can and still afford to live. It isn't that those jobs don't pay well enough. It is that they can't pay well enough.

    And, yes, "companies should be glad to let them do it and profit off their labors." And they are. But the workers here are less happy. Outsourcing makes those goods cheaper, yes, but not free, so a worker would still need an income to enjoy those goods. And they don't have a income, because they don't have a job.

    We need jobs. And jobs are rarer these days. And not because of outsourcing, either, not primarily. Jobs are scarce because everything requires less labor. And not just blue-collar, unskilled labor. We need less skilled labor too. Architects need fewer draftsmen, lawyers need fewer paralegals, large companies need fewer librarians. All support staff has generally been gutted.

    We will need a basic living stipend very VERY soon, be it called permanent unemployment benefits or the purple wage. But given how entrenched and delusional politicians have become — especially Republicans — I have little hope of seeing any orderly steps in that direction. I forsee nothing but economic crisis after economic crisis.

    --
    i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  69. Marx? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Such automation is a reflection of Marx's general law of capitalist accumulation. In early stages of accumulation, the mass of labor increases. At some point, wages begin to rise (the size of the industrial reserve army decreases). Once wages cut too much into the capitalists' surplus value (assuming the absolute surplus value cannot grow further), the variable component of capital (labor) is replaced by constant capital (means of production, robots in this case).

  70. Re:Robots in China? Why not in the US? by prefec2 · · Score: 1

    News for you. The US is not the most important market anymore and it definitely will not be in future. In addition all the components from your iPhones, Androids, netbooks etc come already from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan or China. So it make more sense to assemble the stuff there.
     

  71. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
    Airbus also makes commercial airplanes. In the low end civilian jet segment companies like Embraer dominate sales.

    In the military airplane segment it is basically a worldwide contest between the US and Russia. Perhaps in a decade China will also compete for these sales on a global, rather than regional, level.

    I find myself listening a lot to Japanese music lately after being influenced by anime shows. Japanese culture also permeates a lot through the ASEAN countries more than one could think at first. Regarding movies the main issues are capital and funding. Other countries with a lot of capital will invest in movies eventually. Much of the "US" music and movie industry was bought by Japanese concerns in the 80s (Sony Pictures Entertainment) or European concerns (Vivendi, Bertelsmann) in the 90s. If the US government does force China into valuating the Yuan I have little doubt they would go on a US corporation shopping spree like the Japanese and the Europeans did before.

  72. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by Targon · · Score: 1

    And this pushes people to get an education, rather than thinking they can get through life by putting in the least amount of effort. If we want the species to become more intelligent with each new generation, we need to change society into WANTING to be more intelligent, and letting the criminally stupid just die out, or have fewer children compared to those with more intelligence. Stop trying to save the stupid people, because we should WANT them to be weeded out of the gene pool!

  73. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by anagama · · Score: 1
    Masters is the new Bachelors: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/education/edlife/edl-24masters-t.html?pagewanted=all

    Sorry, but not all people are cut out for higher education.

    "There is definitely some devaluing of the college degree going on," says Eric A. Hanushek, an education economist at the Hoover Institution, and that gives the master's extra signaling power. "We are going deeper into the pool of high school graduates for college attendance," making a bachelor's no longer an adequate screening measure of achievement for employers.

    There are lots of people who can be productive without over-educating the entire population. This isn't elitism -- it's a fact that not every person is appropriate for school and it would be a good thing if those people could make a productive living. This is where the true elitism lays -- that if you don't get a higher education, well, fuck you, you're a stupid redneck. That's not a good situation for those people and it is very bad for America.

    --
    What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  74. Full automation is not possible by sjbe · · Score: 1

    There's an 'interesting' economic problem and endgame in full automation too...

    Full automation is not remotely possible with any reasonably foreseeable technology we possess. Not even necessarily for purely technical reasons. The primary limits are actually economic. There are a great many tasks for which are sufficiently complex that the automation required to do the task would cost FAR more than the task is worth. Automation typically has a high up front fixed cost which needs a significant volume or VERY high value to make economically reasonable. When you deal in complex tasks that come in small quantities (and there are LOTS of them), it often makes sense to utilize humans to do the job. It is economically impossible to create flexible automation that is cheap enough for full automation to be possible even if we could technically accomplish it ... which we cannot.

    The notion that we are going to automate away all the jobs is a foolish notion, particularly when so much of the world can be hired for very low wages.

  75. Re:And with this, the Chinese economy will implode by TheSync · · Score: 1

    Now, picture what will happen if robots remove the jobs in China. People will be out of work, there will be no replacement jobs, and all hell will break loose over there.

    Indeed, look at what happened in the US when internal combustion engines took the jobs of nearly 90% of all farm workers in the US between 1880 anf 1950!

    Oh yeah, they found something else to do...

  76. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by donaldm · · Score: 1

    I am quite sure the Hitler thought the same thing.

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  77. Haven't we been here before? by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

    Back when the Japanese economy was rising there was a lot of talk of automation, but it didn't pan out like expected. While Japanese industry uses a lot of robots, there appears to be an upper limit to the economic effectiveness of the current generation of robot technology. Robots can be cost effective, but it requires the maintenance and (re)programming costs to be low. Part of the reason for China's rise economically was that their labor was cheaper than robots. My guess is this automation effort will probably go the same way.

  78. Re:Why isn't Africa building these components? by Enahs · · Score: 1

    I guess I missed where this was an opportunity to spew racist nonsense and score points against "left wing" people.

    --
    Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
  79. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I really don't have much faith in the idea that the average Chinese citizen is being encouraged to get a higher education. So far as I know the vast majority of them are just trying to find some way to exist, and their own government isn't doing much to help them in that.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  80. Re:Welcome!: Not so much. by real-modo · · Score: 1

    Specialization is a pretty basic to macroeconomics.

    Yes! That explains why the Germans make cars and sell them to the French, and in return the French make ... cars, and ... and sell them to the, the ... the Germans...

    Wait, what?

    I think you mean, specialization is fundamental to increaasing productivity at the firm and industry level. That is, in microeconomics.

    The jobs we outsource are jobs we don't actually want because they don't pay well enough and are pretty unskilled.

    Of course. That explains why since the recession bottomed out, nearly all the growth in employment in the USA has been in jobs that pay less than the median wage. ... Oh, wait.

  81. Re:And with this, the Chinese economy will implode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1st off, that was moving from one labor intensive kind of job to another

    2nd That miracle was accomplished mainly by social democracy mostly. Women were pushed away from employment, child labor was abolished, work week lowered social programs were created and retirement was created. However the situation was still so bad that Marxism and Communism were seen as good ideas and those systems the anti Socialist reactionaries and Fascists among other were responsible for millions upon millions of horrific deaths. In a world system as brittle as the one we have the risks are higher and a bad enough cascade of events could result in say I dunno, a global human die back or a nuclear war or worse..

      3rd The current employment system in the US is not producing any real ability to fill demand. Most recent jobs were mostly created by reducing the high wages of male factory workers (as they were in the 70's) and either outsourcing or splitting them. Take one $30 an hour job , create two $12 or less an hour jobs and pocket the difference . Its not helping . Real good employment is amazingly low and the types of jobs are either poorly paid . 40 million people require government assistance to eat and millions more are either employed at low wages or living on pensions. Pensions are not a bad thing but if your younger smarter families do not have adequate resources, they won't breed and you'll get what we are seeing now, a general growth in anti intellectualism and decline in national ability such as our collapsing infrastructure and our inability to have manned spaceflight, something we could do nearly half a century ago. President Camacho here we come.

    Whats going on is extreme short sightedness, corruption and pathological greed teaming up with a stupid sort of Conservatism.

  82. Foxconn and Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was interesting to read about conditions at Foxconn. The story was not all that different than the one I read recently called "My summer at the call center". These stories sound bad. But we (Americans) understand all to well what is going on. It has been about ten years since outsourcing more or less destroyed our domestic job situation for software engineers. How sorry I am now that I didn't know how good I had it back when there was all the work I could do. The work was available to me because I spent my life grinding away at my profession. A lifetime of working weekends while my friends hit the beaches. I guess it was just as well that I loved my work. As a software engineer, I was able to work (because I was able to do the work) without being a member of a union, or a guild. I knew this was a special time in history, with the microprocessor revolution unfolding all around us, and the Internet as well. Whether it is actually true or not, I blame Microsoft for stratifying the software industry into two groups. System software work, usually performed at Microsoft with access to proprietary information, and extremely low level application work, easy done in Visual Basic, leaving independent system software engineers like me out in the cold. I thought there would always be work for good people, and I strove to be one of them. But working hard, and learning every day just wasn't enough. Now I like Apple a lot more than I like Microsoft. I really wish I could have worked at Apple along the way, but I understand they pay domestic engineers substandard wages, to the point that I don't know how Apple employees afford housing anywhere near Cupertino. But I meant to write about Apple and the conditions at their supplier's factories. The problem is not Apple. IMHO the problem is the mindset of the current set of MBA's that human values come second behind stock valuation. The rush to outsource every possible aspect of business to save every penny had a corollary cost in terms of quality of life for American people (all occupations). But it is all so short sighted, and it treats people like replaceable parts. Yes the Indian software people get trained on the latest Microsoft stuff and come out of school and get sucked up by corporations (Microsoft too) and squeezed dry for a year or two (with no regard for ongoing viability) and then are discarded (a different time scale, but the same affect as on domestic workers). Apple is not substantially worse (on the basis of the conditions at their suppliers) than most other large companies that have outsourced manufacturing to the most desirable country where lab or is cheapest. And to hear that these companies are going to automate with robots is a next step we shouldn't have been surprised about. And these devices we all crave, iPad... they are more about consuming than producing, and that is a problem too.

  83. No it won't by coder111 · · Score: 1

    There will always be a limited supply of some resources, like villas on top of the hill by the beach and people willing to provide certain services. So you'll have to have some sort of government to distribute these limited resources and it will become corrupted and you'll end up pretty much where we are now. Unless there is a way to create efficient and incorruptible government, all the projects and utopias and whatever to change world order will fail.

    We need some sort of collective consciousness or a way to do ECC-like parity error detection on human group decision making to identify and isolate waste and corruption. Or get ourselves ruled by AI. Or develop training/brainwashing techniques that produce incorruptible efficient ruling class of Ubermensh (you can argue that medieval nobility was supposed to provide that, and they failed).

    --Coder

  84. Suicidal robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am just waiting until the robots jump to their own death!

  85. outsourcing times 2 -- yeah. payback well deserved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is great! outsource US jobs to foreigners, now replace foreigners with robots -- serves them right!!