Will Your Next iPhone Be Built By Robots?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Will Your Next iPhone Be Built By Robots?

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 4, 2012 @10:01AM from the certainly-hope-so dept.

itwbennett writes "Foxconn has ambitious plans to deploy a million-robot army on its assembly lines. But while robots already perform some basic tasks, when it comes to the more delicate assembly work, humans still have the edge. George Zhang, senior principal scientist with ABB, a major vendor of industrial robots, thinks Foxconn will eventually replace human workers for much of its electronic assembly, but probably not in time for the iPhone 6. For now, humans are still a cheaper and more practical choice."

171 of 251 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Android built iphones? by cait56 · 2012-10-04 10:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Android built iphones?
1. Re:Android built iphones? by newcastlejon · 2012-10-04 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  Anything would be better than iRobot.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
2. Re:Android built iphones? by ozmanjusri · 2012-10-04 10:17 · Score: 2
  
  And right on cue a typical Slashdot stunned mullet has taken the inflammatory clickbait hook, line and sinker.
  Sadly, this sort of mindless response will encourage the "editors" to frontpage ad-grabbing garbage instead or interesting articles.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
3. Re:Android built iphones? by bennomatic · 2012-10-04 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  For some reason, this reminds me of the "How is babby formed" meme.
  
  How is iphonn formed?
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
4. Re:Android built iphones? by bennomatic · 2012-10-04 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  I don't agree. That scene in I Am Legend where he kills his dog is pretty well done...
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
5. Re:Android built iphones? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  Jeez... No one even got a chance to cue the Apple fangrrrlz, they swoop in with too much quickness.
6. Re:Android built iphones? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Really, who's worse, these posts you are predicting, or you, the guy that is stirring things up?
7. Re:Android built iphones? by ozmanjusri · 2012-10-04 10:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Good point.
  Here's another story that didn't hit the front page:
  
  Apple stock spanked for low iPhone 5 sales
  Only days after Apple (AAPL) began to put its new iPhone 5 into customers' hands, the company's stock has taken a beating. The reason doesn't have to do with Apple's disappointing mapping software, or even the reports of new iPhones being damaged right out of the box.
  Instead, investors have expressed disappointment in how many iPhone 5 units sold in the first weekend.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-57521414/apple-stock-spanked-for-low-iphone-5-sales/
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
8. Re:Android built iphones? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-04 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  The one that happens even in the absence of the other.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
9. Re:Android built iphones? by BasilBrush · 2012-10-04 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  When you're in a hole, dig ever faster. Excellent. More!
10. Re:Android built iphones? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-10-04 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  Sigh. Only on Wall Street could you ship 5 million units in a few days and still be disappointing.
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
11. Re:Android built iphones? by collet · 2012-10-04 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  C'mon, everyone knows what the "i" in Apple's product names stand for, right?
12. Re:Android built iphones? by jamstar7 · 2012-10-04 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, he's not bad, as long as he plays the one character he knows well: Will Smith. Anything else, he loses it.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
13. Re:Android built iphones? by Plumpaquatsch · 2012-10-04 23:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Good point.
  Here's another story that didn't hit the front page:
  
  Apple stock spanked for low iPhone 5 sales
  Only days after Apple (AAPL) began to put its new iPhone 5 into customers' hands, the company's stock has taken a beating. The reason doesn't have to do with Apple's disappointing mapping software, or even the reports of new iPhones being damaged right out of the box.
  Instead, investors have expressed disappointment in how many iPhone 5 units sold in the first weekend.
  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-57521414/apple-stock-spanked-for-low-iphone-5-sales/
  You mean because it didn't sell twice as many as the iPhone 4S as they expected after they heard of the record pre-orders (as opposed to after the introduction where they predicted it would be a huge flop - just like they said about the 4S)? While being confused how to count those pre-orders not yet shipped?
  Just shows that if there's something dumber than a Fandroid, it's a stock market analyst.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
14. Re:Android built iphones? by Hognoxious · 2012-10-05 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  The difference? If you look carefully at the robots, you can tell them apart.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Robots in China? by maxwell+demon · 2012-10-04 10:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

If the work is done by robots anyway, then what is the advantage of producing in China (except when producing for the Chinese market)? You don't have the advantage of cheap workers (robots don't get wages), but you have the disadvantage of higher transport cost.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
1. Re:Robots in China? by zlives · 2012-10-04 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  +1 insightful
2. Re:Robots in China? by GodInHell · 2012-10-04 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget the social instability that will follow in China once you slam the doors of the factory closed.
3. Re:Robots in China? by scamper_22 · 2012-10-04 10:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Supply chains, factory skills, skill workers, operators...
  Do you know how long it took China to build its industry? It took decades. It takes a lot to move big systems.
  Why is Ontario or Michigan still a huge player in the automotive game despite their high cost? There's a huge system there that is hard to move. Lots of suppliers, skilled people that know what they're doing...
  You will note it is FoxConn working on this. There's nothing of course stopping a Western country from working on it.... but do you know the first thing about assembling mobile phones? No... it takes knowledge. Knowledge that right now resides in China. They know all the tasks people need to do to assemble the smartphone and can then build and task robots to do it.
  And most likely it won't happen all at once. Maybe one part of the assembly gets automated. So that robot is placed in the FoxConn factory in China. A lot of parts suppliers are probably in China too (transport costs there as well). To move the automated factory to the west would cost a lot of time and money... is it worth the shipping costs? Believe it or not... shipping costs... even with todays gas prices are still quite low relative to the costs of everything else.
  I'll leave it to the companies to figure out the optimal cost... but it's just not obvious that you'd want to assemble locally for such small items.
4. Re:Robots in China? by bledri · 2012-10-04 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Two things come to mind. The factories are already in place and possibly environmental considerations (or the ability to ignore environmental considerations.)
  
  --
  Some privacy policy Slashdot.
5. Re:Robots in China? by AcidPenguin9873 · 2012-10-04 10:21 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Supply chain. The entire supply chain for electronics manufacturing currently exists almost completely in Southeast Asia and China. Not that it couldn't be moved, but you'd need a huge effort to move the whole set: raw materials like rare earths, silicon wafer processing, packaging, PCB manufacturing, case manufacturing, final assembly, etc. Instead of shipping the finished device to the US, you'd be shipping about 50 different components unless they were also available from the US.
  Now, hypothetically, if you could get all of the raw materials in the US (or I suppose shipped to the US, but China is increasingly refusing to ship raw materials these days), and get companies to set up robotic manufacturing facilities in the US, then yes, you could do the whole thing in the US.
  At that point, there aren't any jobs involved in the manufacture of that device, so why do we care where it's manufactured? If it's built completely by robots at every point in the supply chain, the only people making any money off of the device are the 1%er capitalists who own the factories, the people who designed the device, and the people who designed the robots (which also were presumably built by other robots). Most of that design work is still in the US. Oh and I suppose the people who own the land where the raw materials came from.
  If you can't tell, I'm getting at a completely post-labor society here, which is probably still quite a ways off, but not outside the realm of thinking.
6. Re:Robots in China? by alen · 2012-10-04 10:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No one wants toxic waste dumped here in the USA
7. Re:Robots in China? by frosty_tsm · 2012-10-04 10:31 · Score: 2
  
  At that point, there aren't any jobs involved in the manufacture of that device, so why do we care where it's manufactured?
  Someone will need to maintain and retool the robots. A fair portion of today's heavy manufacturing jobs go to the fixers.
8. Re:Robots in China? by peragrin · 2012-10-04 10:36 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  many industries are moving manufacturing back to the states and Europe not because the Chinese can't do it cheaper but shipping has become so damn expensive.
  once robots are built to do that fine dexterity work it becomes feasible to build small factories in various countries around the world and only ship raw materials/bulk products around. why build USA's and Europe's demand in China when they could be built in Canada or Ireland for a fraction of the overall shipping costs. In the next 30 years I see that trend coming out. combined with advances in material sciences and 3D Printing/Robototic assembly. one massive factory will become franshise factories.
  If you want an idea. a restaurant only cooks and prepares food it doesn't grow/gather the raw materials.
  a franchise factory will build your item. to designer specs, and with possibly raw materials supplied by the designer.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
9. Re:Robots in China? by Kenja · 2012-10-04 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Its simple, China charges tariffs on goods made outside of China while the US does not (or at least not enough of ones to make a difference). So if Apple wants to sell in China, which is the fastest growing economy right now, then they save money by making stuff there.
  
  --
  
  "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
10. Re:Robots in China? by bennomatic · 2012-10-04 10:42 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  ...is it worth the shipping costs? Believe it or not... shipping costs... even with todays gas prices are still quite low relative to the costs of everything else.
  If you believe that global temperature shifts are causing greater weather destabilization, then--regardless of gas prices--that could shift significantly. Shipping is cheap because, let's say you're sending phones--you can fit thousands of them into a container, probably more than 100,000 on a single ship, maybe more. But there's always a non-zero chance of losing that cargo, and if you suddenly can't make a trans-Pacific journey for six months out of the year because of constant hurricanes, production in China won't seem to be such a great deal.
  
  Of course, by that point, we'll probably have bigger fish to fry. Assuming there are any fish left.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
11. Re:Robots in China? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  This kinda falls apart when you consider that now they're opening a billion $ plant in Brazil now. There's nothing geographically fixed about how to assemble stuff on a line, except for maybe local labor cost and regulations. There just isn't a lot of high-level institutional knowledge in assembling consumer electronics, any more than there is in assembling cars. Which, oddly, you cite as well, despite the decline of the US auto industry.
  As it turns out, the guy making $85k to snap in plastic door panels can be replaced by someone making $10k somewhere else.
12. Re:Robots in China? by DM9290 · 2012-10-04 10:46 · Score: 2
  
  A fair portion of today's heavy manufacturing jobs go to the fixers.
  Actually a fair portion of todays heavy manufacturing jobs go to the robots. The "fixers" are merely replacement for the company doctors that have been fired when the human workforce was made redundant.
  
  --
  No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
13. Re:Robots in China? by tompaulco · 2012-10-04 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  If robots are doing the work, once you figure in the shipping lag, the cost of shipping materials to there, the cost of shipping the finished product back here, the socio-economic ramifications of building in one market for purchase in another, it makes far more sense to undertake the cost of building a factory in the target market.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
14. Re:Robots in China? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Progress towards a post-labor society so far has been met by kicking, screaming, lower wages, and poverty. Stay tuned to see if this trend continues...
15. Re:Robots in China? by HornWumpus · 2012-10-04 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  China will peg their currency at such a value that results in 99% industrial utilization.
  Until they automate their factories they had to worry that wages would rise too fast. If they can automate then things will be peachy for all the sons of central committee members.
  Of course that assumes that the peg holds. Burning out the presses for both the Euro and the Dollar is a natural and sort of aggressive reaction to the peg. Then again the peg is basically aggressive in it's nature.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
16. Re:Robots in China? by HornWumpus · 2012-10-04 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  I have a plow that needs pulling Mr. AC. (Do you see this rifle?)
  Why aren't we already starving? 97% of us have been put out of our farms!
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
17. Re:Robots in China? by drkim · 2012-10-04 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  ...a franchise factory will build your item. to designer specs, and with possibly raw materials supplied by the designer.
  I believe this could be just a 3D printer.
18. Re:Robots in China? by drkim · 2012-10-04 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  As it turns out, the guy making $85k to snap in plastic door panels can be replaced by someone making $10k somewhere else.
  ...until the $10k guy is replaced by a robot running on $13/year of electricity.
19. Re:Robots in China? by Kjella · 2012-10-04 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  If you can't tell, I'm getting at a completely post-labor society here, which is probably still quite a ways off, but not outside the realm of thinking.
  Not as long as people want to be serviced by other people, until people want to stick their head into a hair cutting machine and have beer served by a robot we'll still need hair dressers and waiters so we can't all be these "post-labor" people. What may happen though is that the value of labor relative to the value of money diminishes, we're still offering services to each other but the 1%ers become ridiculously rich. They can have whatever products or services they want from us and it costs them "nothing" or reasonably close enough and even high end workers like doctors or engineers would just be making peanuts, oh sure you'll still beat the guy working at McDonald's but it'd be like two Africans living on $1 and $2/day comparing salaries to them. Sure you make double what the other guy does, but they're still two poor people.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
20. Re:Robots in China? by roman_mir · 2012-10-04 13:33 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It was never about lower wages, it was about fewer regulations and fewer taxes. Wages themselves are a distant third or even further compared to the costs added by government regulations and taxes.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
21. Re:Robots in China? by WillHirsch · 2012-10-04 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  This advantage has proved infallible for established industries like the 18th-century colonial sugar industry and the 19th-century British shipbuilding industry...
22. Re:Robots in China? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 14:57 · Score: 1
  
  IANAMeterologist, but I believe the idea is that global warming => warmer waters in the oceans => more and worse hurricanes/typhoons. There's a reason hurricanes start out around the equator, in the summertime, and don't usually proceed very far north: they get their energy from the warm water and air.
23. Re:Robots in China? by hrvatska · 2012-10-04 15:47 · Score: 2
  
  It's not like the masses want it dumped in China, either. http://www.anticcp.org/ten-thousand-riot-over-incinerator-construction-in-china.html , http://www.politicolnews.com/china-riots-over-industrial-waste-pipeline/, http://www.navitron.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=14998.0;wap2 .
24. Re:Robots in China? by sl149q · 2012-10-04 17:51 · Score: 1
  
  Its not like there are no robots or automated assemply processes in the current Foxconn factories.
  Its just that there is less than some people think there could or should or shouldn't be.
  Who will complain the most about this headline.
  Workers displaced by robots in Foxconn factories?
  or:
  Fewer workers being abused by Foxconn after robots being added?
  Over time fewer workers will produce more due to automation. Anyone doubting that is just being stupid. It doesn't need a headline.
25. Re:Robots in China? by sl149q · 2012-10-04 17:55 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately Canada is a union friendly country. Until we get right to work laws think southern US states where you are not required to join a union to work in a factory.
  You may or may not agree with unions on principle, but the fact remains that the jobs will migrate to where the cost of labor stays low and union demands are minimal. It is not a choice of a union or no union. Its a choice between unions and no jobs.
26. Re:Robots in China? by sl149q · 2012-10-04 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  Apple drop ships their phones and pads from the factory to either a store or end user. Typically either UPS or Fed-Ex. And it ain't ground or by ship!
27. Re:Robots in China? by sl149q · 2012-10-04 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  Being maintained by a guy making $85k a year...
  Except of course that guy is maintaining multiple robots and the robots cost enough that their amortized cost / year for capital is many thousands of dollars.
  But it does end up being cheaper, faster and in most cases with higher and more consitant quality.
  Apple doesn't have Foxconn build their products because Foxconn is the cheapest place to build their products. Foxconn does the best job for the price paid.
28. Re:Robots in China? by jamstar7 · 2012-10-04 18:00 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to watch the Weather Channel some. From what I've seen, hurricanes are starting earlier, the season is getting longer, and the storms are moving further up the coasts than before. Of course, that could be that I'm just an old greybeard...
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
29. Re:Robots in China? by sl149q · 2012-10-04 18:01 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the "raw materials" for something like an iPhone come from outside of China anyway. Foxconn is not making things up out of raw materials. They take chips and boards and batteries and glass and assemble it. The rest of the stuff is manufactured across the world by specialist factories.
30. Re:Robots in China? by drkim · 2012-10-04 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  Being maintained by a guy making $85k a year...
  No. He'll be making $8k a year.
  His job is to push the big, red button that says, "ACTIVATE REPAIR ROBOT."
31. Re:Robots in China? by peragrin · 2012-10-04 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  a 3D printer doesn't just do the electronics. and it doesn't assemble multiple components into one. at least yet.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
32. Re:Robots in China? by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-04 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  There are advantages to shipping raw components and assembling them in the west. For example games consoles attract import duty, which is why Sony keeps trying to claim that the various iterations of the Playstation are general purpose computers. Electronic components are generally exempt.
  As for skills creating a fully robotic factory requires very different ones to creating a manned factory. We have an opportunity to develop those skills and get ahead of China now. In fact some Japanese companies have already done that, e.g. Panasonic makes its high end TVs in a "lights-out" factory they built in Japan.
  Actually we are quite advanced with that kind of thing in the west because increasingly you have to use robots to make stuff. To take the example of Panasonic TVs again it is extremely difficult to manufacture and assemble a screen that large and keep it completely free of defects and trapped dust if human beings have to handle the components. Robots operating in a clean room with consistent precision increase yields dramatically and thus reduce costs.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
33. Re:Robots in China? by rally2xs · 2012-10-05 00:41 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, for cryin' out loud, its the union boogey-man. Look, the Germans have unions up the wazoo, their auto workers make about $66 / hr on average, and they still kick a** all over the automotive market. Fact: Automation-heavy industries can be unionized and it doesn't much matter because the labor costs aren't a big part of the price of the goods.
  Detroit-iron cars take about 30 - 33 labor hours to build, and the (evil) union workers get something like $78 / hr in wages and benefits, and that's only $2500 or so per vehicle. Big whoop. Want to really lower the price of a US-built (car, anything...)? Get rid of the income taxes. About 22% of the selling price of most American-manufactured goods is embedded income tax expense incurred by the manufacturer. Get rid of THAT and watch the jobs come flying back to the USA. There won't be as many jobs per factory as China, due to the heavy automation, but there'll be a LOT more factories. Win-win, all we have to do is pass the Fair Tax, and quit sabotaging our own businesses.
34. Re:Robots in China? by rally2xs · 2012-10-05 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Engineers making peanuts? You betcha - Have you noticed, for instance the shortage of software engineers. Fewer and fewer students are selecting software these days. Why? Because if they're smart enough to do software, then they're smart enough to know that their job is going to go to India or China or even Russia at some point, and they'll have to become roofers or waiters or go back to school to become lawyers if they haven't saved a lifetimes' support by the time they're 39 (because they also know about the rampant age discrimination in software as well.)
  Engineering shortage? Not really, there's only a shortage of engineers that will work for peanuts, and they're being imported on H1B Visas from overseas.
35. Re:Robots in China? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-05 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  That isn't quite accurate I think. Engineers aren't being paid peanuts, yet. But the real wages (relative to the value of the dollar) are steadily falling. I'm a software engineer myself, and I don't see that many H1Bs; what I do see is a lot of work being farmed out to locations overseas, which is a lot cheaper for companies than hiring a bunch of H1Bs and bringing them over here, though this is mainly with larger companies that can afford to employ whole development teams over there. I also see a lot of companies where they just have a really hard time filling open spots, and it's not because there's some steady stream of cheap H1Bs (in fact most studies show them to be more expensive than citizens), it just seems to be that these companies are cheap and stupid, and would rather stumble along understaffed and try to flog their existing engineers for more unpaid overtime than to just hire more people. It's the same mentality of my last company: they made me suffer for a year with some shitty old computer with a tiny monitor, even though a faster computer (for better compile times) and a bigger monitor (to see more code on the screen) would improve my productivity, and you can buy a giant monitor these days for only $200 and a fast desktop PC for maybe $600. Penny wise and pound foolish as the old saying goes.
36. Re:Robots in China? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-05 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well that would all be consistent with what I wrote. If things are getting warmer, then there's more energy in the oceans, meaning there's enough energy to start hurricanes earlier in the year than before and also later as well, and storms would be stronger and be able to travel farther and gain enough energy from the water to continue at higher latitudes.
  This makes me wonder: back in the time of dinosaurs, when the earth was much warmer than now, did they have tons of huge hurricanes?
37. Re:Robots in China? by rwise2112 · 2012-10-05 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Well... It's Foxcon (a Chinese company), not Apple, that's building the robotic factory. Plus they make things that get sold around the world, not just in the US.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
38. Re:Robots in China? by petermgreen · 2012-10-05 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  This was the problem Raspberry Pi had for their first production batches anyway.
  They said it was a factor but not the deal breaker* .However they never revealed just how much it would have been (presumablly because to reveal that would have meant revealing how much they were paying for components and their component suppliers want that info kept confidental).
  Also it depends what the finished product is in the eyes of customs laws. See for example sony trying to get various playstation models to count as computers rather than games consoles because games consoles attracted import duty while computers didn't.
  * IIRC the deal breaker was they couldn't find any UK factories who could do the work at the required price and in the required volume.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
39. Re:Robots in China? by scamper_22 · 2012-10-05 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  That was my point... we in the West are just as capable.
  BUT... since the current manual manufacture is being done overseas, they then have the ability to automate it.
  TV manufacturing as you example said moved out of the US a long time ago. I could be wrong, but I think the last major manufacturer with Zenith.
  Since Panasonic was assembling TVs manually for years in Japan, they could see the opportunity and had the know how on how to automate it. They also have the grand name.
  I think I was clear in my original post. But I'm not suggesting it is impossible for the West to automate such thing or do it locally... just that it is not an 'obvious' or 'natural' shift.
40. Re:Robots in China? by KDR_11k · 2012-10-05 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Not just shipping. China's disrespect towards foreign IP isn't unknown to CEOs around the world. They know that by having stuff built in China they risk having their technology stolen by spies but because it's so much cheaper to build there it's worth the risk (what good is a technology if you can't compete because you're pricing yourself out of the market?). Without the massive cost advantage it's worth investing in having them built in countries where the government doesn't interfere that much with the economy (Libertarians will throw some stuff about no country being free of that in here but other countries don't use govt resources to steal technology from private enterprises and funnel it to their national ones) and your inventions aren't being used to create a competitor for you.
  Also there's that Japanese island business, especially Japanese companies may be thinking about moving as much of their property out of China as possible just in case the govt decides to incite another round of anti-Japan protests (last time that led to factories being shut down because the Japanese owners feared that the rioting population would damage them).
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
41. Re:Robots in China? by KDR_11k · 2012-10-05 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  The US has significantly lower taxes than Germany too (especially VAT, buying non-food items at retail includes 19% VAT in Germany which already hikes the price up, we also pay about 50% of our income on taxes and the social system) yet the aforementioned car companies are doing their job just fine. Detroit's issue was one of selling the wrong goods or being badly optimized.
  Besides, car companies manufacture much closer to the selling location than e.g. electronics industries. GM or VW cars sold in China are versions specifically designed for China and made in Chinese factories (I guess they're cheaper versions due to the much lower incomes in China). The R&D happens in the home country of the car maker but the production is usually near the target market. Doesn't just apply to poor countries either, VW has factories in the USA and GM has factories in Germany (the Opel brand). Probably for different demands and regulations or something.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
42. Re:Robots in China? by KDR_11k · 2012-10-05 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  That's even further off. If we manage to build completely automated, self-maintaining factories we need to figure out a way to make society work without people having jobs (just saying "go starve" will incite a rebellion). That's pretty much when we enter the post-scarcity era.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
43. Re:Robots in China? by rally2xs · 2012-10-05 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  From what I've read, the reason for the foreign car companies having plants here in the USA is that _we_ are the cheap labor. With Germany having about a $66 / hr labor rate, and we having a $28 labor rate for non-unionized foreign car factories in the USA, we beat the home country handily. And of course with the trends to even lower pay, with union contracts allowing new workers to come in at $15 / hr, somewhat above poverty level for a family of 4, we just keep getting better at it. If the US had several factories on each corner of each town, the competiton for labor would take care of that, but as long as the income taxes hammer on business to the extent that they do, forget about the US "coming back." Not gonna happen with our super-high corporate taxes.
44. Re:Robots in China? by fluffernutter · 2012-10-05 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Five robot technicians working for $5 a day in China versus $500 a day here.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
45. Re:Robots in China? by maxwell+demon · 2012-10-05 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  I blame the JEWS.
  And I blame the ANONYMOUS COWARDS.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
46. Re:Robots in China? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-05 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, it's so damn inconvenient when you can't just dump your waste into a river, or dig out a hole next to some city and bury it there. Fucking socialists.
47. Re:Robots in China? by drkim · 2012-10-05 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  a 3D printer doesn't just do the electronics. and it doesn't assemble multiple components into one.
  There are already single printers that do multiple colors and a small variety of similar materials (up to 14 different materials in one run.)
  http://www.techhive.com/article/256691/this_3d_printer_can_use_up_to_14_materials_makes_3d_printing_more_awesome.html
  And there are singular printers that (each) do different materials (stainless steel, ceramic, rubber, ABS, glass, sandstone, even chocolate!)
  It won't be long until there is no 'assembly' phase. The object is just printed out complete. Airbus is already looking into this: "Airbus Explores Building Planes With Giant 3D Printers"
  http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/07/11/airbus-explores-a-future-where-planes-are-built-with-giant-3d-printers/
48. Re:Robots in China? by drkim · 2012-10-05 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, we are already well along that path. Over 50% of our labor force doesn't do any actual 'work.' By that I mean, they don't physically make a product, they don't grow food, they don't operate equipment.
  People will still have jobs. But once machines are doing all the 'work' (i.e. the stuff human would rather not do) more of us will have 'fun' jobs like poet, singer, author, movie director, etc...
  Look at YouTube. There are already people making some money just shooting random stuff with their cel cameras.
  Look at blogs. There are already people making some money writing about what they had for lunch, or what movie they like.
49. Re:Robots in China? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-05 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  So market says that China has better property rights, all while factories are dumping waste into rivers. So it's all good then - got you.
50. Re:Robots in China? by roman_mir · 2012-10-05 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Market says that China has better property rights, that's why companies are moving there.
  If dumping of whatever pollutants is happening in China this only means that their property rights are not ideal, it means that there is plenty of property that is 'owned' by the government, and the gov't doesn't care about all that property.
  Do you want to take a step back and think about the atrocious behaviour that took place in the former USSR and I know that you know, how much land and water reserves and all the rest was destroyed by the government? Do you want to start comparing what the productive output was back in the USSR and how it compares to the modern day China?
  I did not say that property rights in China were top notch, I said that the market prefers China and not USA.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
51. Re:Robots in China? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-05 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  You still haven't explained how it happens that China has better property rights than USA, yet significantly more pollution. After all, according to you, better property rights should lead to less pollution in relative terms, regardless of absolute numbers.
  Could it possibly be that not all governments are created equal, and there's more than property rights to account for when comparing two countries?..
52. Re:Robots in China? by roman_mir · 2012-10-05 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  Pollution in China is related to the fact that government owns so much property and to the fact that it was such a poor country under the communist rule, so that nobody owned anything and thus huge gain in productivity caused plenty of pollution. Pollution is always front loaded in societies that are moving from pre-industrial to industrial format. So to build your first nuclear reactor you'll have to go through a few stages of other, cheaper forms of producing energy, and they are definitely more polluting. Running a diesel generator or a coal power plant creates more pollution than running a nuclear reactor.
  Running a coal powered iron smelter creates much more pollution than running an electric one. A pre-industrial society does not have the resources, the saved capital to allow itself the most expensive and thus the least polluting options, a pre-industrial society will take these steps, it will go through the growing pains.
  However if the gov't in China was about real freedom, (which it is not), at least these concerns could be addressed between private land owners. Since the biggest land owner in China is government and there is all this pollution, you'll have to take it with Chinese government - why do they allow so much pollution on the 'public' land? Obviously there is no such thing as 'public property', there is only private property and all so called 'public property' is just a way to abuse the environment with the government not paying attention but instead being interested in the money that it will make from all the transactions and taxes.
  However in USA the property rights and obviously many other rights are worse than in China, otherwise the businesses wouldn't be moving to China from USA. I don't have to learn every single detail, why every business moves from USA (and Europe) to China, I only need to see what is easily observable.
  What is easily observable is that companies do move to China, they obviously find that property rights are protected better in China, and property rights includes the right to keep the fruits of your labour. The fact that lands in China are polluted is just another proof of my point - there shouldn't be any public property, it's a nonsense idea, it's an oxymoron. All property should be private and that's how pollution will be combated.
  However the companies moving to China find that their taxes are much lower and that dealing with Chinese authorities is much easier. Many people think that having an overpowering government that needs to be bribed in a very artsy manner (with lobbyists, etc.) is a better way to do business than simply solving the problem by paying a bribe to a local official. Those people who think that never had to run business and definitely they never compared the two options.
  It's much easier to run business if the system has ridiculous rules but on one side the ridiculous rules can be bent quickly and efficiently with a bribe and on the other side it takes much more effort, much more money to do so, which means only the largest monopolies can survive by bending the rules and there is much less competition.
  --
  China has a long way to go before it is actually a Free society (if it ever becomes one), but compared to USA or Europe it is a much Freer society to do business in and it protects your property much better than those 'more developed' societies.
  They are not more developed, they are more bogged down in authoritative bureaucracy. I don't know which way China will go from here, but I wish it to go more towards Hong Kong style capitalism with as much Free Market as possible. The Western societies will collapse as their economies collapse and they will have their totalitarian nightmare for a few years or maybe decades and then they will also rebalance and go back to freedoms.
  ---
  My point in short is this: China allows more freedom to you as a business today than USA and most of Europe but China still is an authoritative regime, with too much public property rathe
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
53. Re:Robots in China? by englishknnigits · 2012-10-05 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Environmental regulations are more lax in China plus you still need to have people maintain and operate the machinery and that labor should still be cheaper than in the US. Would be interesting to see some more quantitative analysis of those costs vs the cost of transportation of goods.
54. Re:Robots in China? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-05 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  China has a long way to go before it is actually a Free society (if it ever becomes one), but compared to USA or Europe it is a much Freer society to do business in and it protects your property much better than those 'more developed' societies.
  The obvious question then: if you value property protection & business freedom more than anything else, and China is doing so well in that department, why not move there?
55. Re:Robots in China? by roman_mir · 2012-10-05 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  I do value freedom to own property more than anything else specifically because all other freedoms are irrelevant if this one freedom does not exist. Actually all other freedoms only exist as long as they support this one specific freedom: ownership of property.
  Think about freedom of speech as an example, what does it mean? It means that the government cannot punish you somehow for speaking your mind, but why is it important for you to speak your mind? It is important for you to speak your mind because you want to be able to do with yourself as you please, you want to be able to run your life as you want, and this means you want your property to be free of tyranny.
  Freedom of speech exists to support your right to own property, without the right to own property freedom of speech is irrelevant. If you cannot own property than all other freedoms are actually completely fake and irrelevant, because your entire life hits into this barrier: you have to take care of yourself (and whoever else you want to take care of) and this means you must be able to pursue happiness, which really means that you must be able to do with your life as you please.
  You cannot do with your life as you please if you cannot provide for your life as you please and being able to provide for your life as you please requires that you have the right to own property. Do you know why? Because if you cannot own property than all your pursuits are irrelevant, because the moment you earn something, you make something, you acquire something, you cannot be sure that it will not be confiscated from you.
  The short version is this: you only can pursue happiness if you can pursue your own property. If you cannot provide for yourself you cannot do anything else, there is nothing else you can do, you have no other freedoms if you cannot earn and keep what you earned.
  Why would you want a freedom of speech then? Because you need to be able to express your views as your ability to own property comes under attack by various sides, most importantly by the government. If the gov't can prevent you from free speech, then it can stop you from explaining your position and building your case and thus it can stop you from building enough movement around your point to prevent the government from stealing your property.
  ----
  Your property starts with your own body. Your body is the result of your parent's giving it to you (thus the right of your parents to leave you with this inheritance) and eventually your body is the result of your own labour.
  If you cannot prevent government from taking your body away from you, piece by piece or all at once, then again, you have nothing else. All of your other property is extension of your body because the same concept applies. You have to work, your labour provides you with whatever you earned and without you these earnings wouldn't be there, wouldn't exist. They are as much yours as your body is.
  A government that can take your property from you is also a government that can take your body from you.
  If you believe in the "from everybody's abilities to everybody's needs", then you have to allow for the possibility that somebody else may present a case that they need your kidneys more than you do, your liver, your heart, whatever.
  If you are not turned off by this perspective then I am not in the same plane as you are at all, to me the very idea that you are not the owner of your own body and by extension of everything that you earn by working (whatever that work is) is completely disgusting and unacceptable on every level.
  ---
  As to me moving to China, since I moved my business already and I moved myself, I am actually looking at spending more time in Asia, Singapore, Hong Kong and I am really interested in the investment opportunities in Burma.
  
  --
  You can't handle the truth.
56. Re:Robots in China? by bennomatic · 2012-10-07 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly right. I actually stay away from the term "global warming" because, while the overall trend is indeed warming, I know that in colder climes, winters have been much harsher. I know a lot of folks in Quebec City, and a couple of winters ago, just about all of them were posting pictures of their snowed-in homes and the tunnels they'd dug to get out to the street. I don't remember the averages, but it seems to me that they got something like 30% more snow--like 8 meters instead of 6--than they had in recent years.
  
  And yet, the spring thaw still came two weeks earlier than normal.
  
  My own comments are based on anecdotal data, combined with a layman's understanding of the scientific data. Don't quote me for any studies, but as a shortcut, your comment about global warming's effects on the world's weather systems are basically right on.
  
  I did see a terrifying TED Talk about one theory of what could happen: Once the icecaps melt, the temperature differentials that power the ocean currents go away, and the oceans stagnate. Large life in the ocean dies off, replaced by plankton and its ilk. There's a huge change in the make-up of our atmosphere, and thus, there are greater temperature changes, as well as shifts in what will grow. A land-animal die-off will follow. Including many (most? all?) of us.
  
  The scientist in question came up with this idea based on evidence that it had happened before, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Based on that, some of the folks who don't believe we should do about global warming would point out, "See, this has happened before; it's cyclical." The point, however, is that our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is accelerating the process; what might have happened in another 10,000 years from now may instead happen in 100 or 200 years.
  
  Of course, don't forget, some of those who are railing the hardest against climate-change-influenced reform have religious motivations to see the end of the world come sooner than later. They think they can accelerate the return of some hippy guy who lived 2000 years ago.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
57. Re:Robots in China? by bennomatic · 2012-10-07 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  I guess I'm living in the past :) I remember buying an iBook around the turn of the century, and getting the FedEx notification that it had left Shenzen, and it took the better part of a week to be tagged as having arrived for customs in Alaska. After that, it bounced to Memphis, then a couple more little bounces before it landed on a truck for my house in Oakland.
  
  Packaging was pretty good back then, but it's gotten even better since then; Apple has really gone far in reducing the space and weight of all the items they ship. It would make sense that--at least with some of them--they could justify shipping by plane, since they can fit so many in one cargo hold.
  
  That would also fit with Tim Cook's assertion that "inventory is, be definition, evil". If you've got $100,000 worth of goods on a plane that will be in customers' hands in three days, with two more planes to follow, that's way better than $300,000 worth of goods on a ship that will get into customers' hands in 9 days.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
Is labor dying? by MrEricSir · 2012-10-04 10:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Seems more and more jobs are being replaced by technology. What happens as the population grows but jobs dissapear?

--
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
1. Re:Is labor dying? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 10:15 · Score: 1
  
  I came here to post the same question. We already have tons of unemployed across the planet and we have enough jobs for people to do but we're told that the economy doesn't work that way. How will we cope as we enter an age of plenty where robots build more devices and we can print parts locally and need to travel less to places like work and school? We're going to have more resources but less people putting them to use. What happens next?
2. Re:Is labor dying? by newcastlejon · 2012-10-04 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  What happens as the population grows but jobs dissapear?
  People who flip burgers start to get nervous.
  
  --
  If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
3. Re:Is labor dying? by BasilBrush · 2012-10-04 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  Ask the Luddites.
4. Re:Is labor dying? by igor.sfiligoi · 2012-10-04 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  Not a new problem.
  Every time you improve the efficiency of production, you cut the amount of human labor needed.
  Think factory vs a bunch of artisan shops. Or a big agriculure machine vs hundreds of small farmers.
  So far, every time we reduced the human labor in one sector, we invented another sector which required a new set of human work.
  Or did you think you could have iPhones using the middle ages efficiencies?
  Let's just hope we can keep up with the trend.
5. Re:Is labor dying? by timeOday · 2012-10-04 10:28 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Presumably those of us who still have jobs (or are comfortably retired) will solve the problem by calling the others lazy and entitled and cutting jobs programs while passing laws that say they must get jobs. Then to address the rising costs of government support for the unemployed we will cut taxes. Problem solved!
6. Re:Is labor dying? by maxwell+demon · 2012-10-04 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  After that, make everybody in Africa take an IQ test and euthanize the ones who score lower than 110.
  I guess you restricted that to Africa because you know that you wouldn't have a chance to get even 100 on the IQ test ... but then, you'd no longer be alive at that point anyway, because in the previous step you advocated to euthanize all retards and morons.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
7. Re:Is labor dying? by rmstar · 2012-10-04 10:35 · Score: 2
  
  Presumably those of us who still have jobs (or are comfortably retired) will solve the problem by calling the others lazy and entitled and cutting jobs programs while passing laws that say they must get jobs. Then to address the rising costs of government support for the unemployed we will cut taxes. Problem solved!
  Nah, that will never work. The people are way to smart to let you get away with that </sarcasm>.
8. Re:Is labor dying? by javilon · 2012-10-04 10:37 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I have thought a lot about this lately. In a very short time during this decade, we will see most of this factory work automated (e.g. Foxconn), then we will see road transportation automated (e.g. google cars) and farm work automated. I don't think there is time for the economy to generate jobs for the growing unemployed part of the population. We are told that western jobs are moving to the east, but this is only a part of the story. Globally, jobs are being lost (Unemployment has risen globally to 210 million, or 30 million jobs lost since 2007 according to the IMF).
  But this is only the current round of automation. If the singularity is near, and I believe it is, probably around 2035 as per Kurszweil's extrapolations of current trends, by the 2020's the value of human work will tend quickly to zero.
  So it is clear to me that:
  1) We should stop taxation of work, asap. Instead we need to tax corporate profits. Google, Microsoft and most of the big corporations pay close to zero taxes. That is unacceptable. For two companies with the same income, the one employing most people pays the more taxes. Also, people is taxed on their job income at a higher rate than its investment profits.
  2) Society needs to come to terms with the fact that most people will not be able to work. World citizens need to have their basic needs covered. Then if they manage to work, they can have extra income. Most people I know would work just to be occupied in something useful.
  Right now, the world is going the wrong direction. Income inequality is at its highest for the last decades all around the world. Economic output is going down and middle class standard of life is going down. What happened in Spain and Greece will soon happen in France, US and other western countries. The sooner the elites realize that they need consumers, the sooner we can change the system so we produce what people needs to survive and we can all move to the next level.
  The alternative is for the elites (and this means 1% of the population, so most of us smartass IT people won't be there) to transcend and the rest of the world to be left in the dust fighting to survive miserable lives. I may be too optimistic, but I don't think that is what the elites want.
  
  --
  
  When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
9. Re:Is labor dying? by DigiShaman · 2012-10-04 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  You end up with revolts shortly followed by a revolution. When you end up with a society predominantly made up of "haves" and have nots" (no middle class), that's when it gets ugly.
  People need to be busy working and producing. But more importantly, they must not be under societal stress that pushes them to a breaking point based on desperation.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
10. Re:Is labor dying? by Hatta · 2012-10-04 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  The global socialist revolution.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
11. Re:Is labor dying? by johnny+cashed · 2012-10-04 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  It's ok, Youtube will need people to manually screen videos for copyright violations.
12. Re:Is labor dying? by ColdWetDog · 2012-10-04 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  Seems more and more jobs are being replaced by technology. What happens as the population grows but jobs dissapear?
  You give the robots an allowance.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
13. Re:Is labor dying? by ShanghaiBill · 2012-10-04 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Seems more and more jobs are being replaced by technology.
  This has already happened, starting about 10000 years ago. It happened again a couple centuries ago.
  
  What happens as the population grows but jobs dissapear?
  Since this is a continuation of a 10000 year old process, there is sufficient data to predict that plenty of new jobs will replace the old jobs and standards of living will continue to increase.
14. Re:Is labor dying? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There is a lot of work that I would like done. Some quick examples:
  1. My lawn needs mowed.
  2. My house could use a good cleaning.
  3. The common cold needs cured.
  4. Full genome mapping for every individual.
  5. Invent a substance capable of providing the cable for a space elevator.
  6. Build a moon base.
  Some of that could use automated labor as well. However, these are all areas where more labor could be devoted. The big challenge is that most of that needs higher education in a technical field.
  In 1900, 90% of the population worked in farming. The US still devotes more of its population to manufacturing now than it did then.
  Worries about a jobless future are overblown. The big problem with the future is the possibility that it will be too easy not to work. If one person can buy a robot that is capable of building arbitrary things, including another robot, then that person could have the robot build another robot and give it to a friend. Repeat that seven billion times, and everyone in the world has their own robot. Assuming we have easy space capability by that time, we can send the robots out to the asteroid belt to mine resources and move into space mansions.
  How will we get people to do things like research and design? What will be scarce and tradeable? How will we motivate people to get advanced educations?
15. Re:Is labor dying? by DM9290 · 2012-10-04 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  So far, every time we reduced the human labor in one sector, we invented another sector which required a new set of human work.
  Let's just hope we can keep up with the trend.
  "hoping" for something is just about the stupidest way to accomplish it. but I guess that's the plan then.
  
  --
  No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
16. Re:Is labor dying? by sjames · 2012-10-04 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Many suggestions have been suggested including implementing the basic income to provide a decent living and drive up the scarcity of labor until we reach a balance.
  The other answer will be the 1% backed GOP plan involving cake eating. Shortly thereafter, there will be a huge civil war ending with the 1%ers roasting over an open fire.
  That's not to say it will be the Democrats who implement the former. They'll 'try real hard' but will be unable to overcome the two remaining GOP representatives in Congress in order to implement it. So the compromise plan will be a small slice of cake with a bit of ice cream, then the civil war.
17. Re:Is labor dying? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  That is hopelessly naive. That is not sufficient data to predict that everything will be fine, any more than the fact that ten thousand years of wars prior to the invention of nuclear weapons hadn't managed to completely wipe out humanity yet predicts that some idiot pushing the button won't wipe us all out.
18. Re:Is labor dying? by gallondr00nk · 2012-10-04 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Society needs to come to terms with the fact that most people will not be able to work.
  Exactly. The next revolution will be one of automation.
  We're already seeing some evidence of this, but the majority still cling to old industrail principles and an outdated ethic that work is somehow "moral" and the fault of unemployment is with the individual and not the society or economic system of the place they live. They don't understand that there is simply not enough work for everyone.
  Don't believe me? Look at the net. Could you imagine how many workers say, Amazon, would need if it was done over the phone? The net isn't just an information thing, its automation. I'm not deriding it, but its a trend that is certain to continue. The question is how we deal with it.
  There are three ways I could see this panning out:
  1: Our current model, which still believes in Industrial-era principles of wage work. Intense competition and fewer jobs would essentially scrap-heap vast swathes of the population.
  I believe this is already happening. Job creation has lagged behind population growth (in the US at least) for decades. This naturally results in lower wages and poorer conditions. If you then couple it with neoliberal attacks on the welfare state it will result in untold human misery.
  2: Make-work, where the "moral" component is kept but the work is essentially meaningless, a way of providing a living. Better, but still inadequete and reactionary. Another possibility is a cap on working hours, but of course this cannot be done without greatly increasing wages and enforcing the cap.
  3: A revolution where working for a living no longer becomes a survival necessity. A guaranteed minimum income or government stipends, perhaps. Done right, this could be a stunning revolution in living standards and our civilisation.
  The question is not if but when.
19. Re:Is labor dying? by grumbel · 2012-10-04 13:28 · Score: 1
  
  So far, every time we reduced the human labor in one sector, we invented another sector which required a new set of human work.
  The problem is that once you have flexible robots, that newly invented sector will use robots right from the start, not human labor.
20. Re:Is labor dying? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-04 15:19 · Score: 1
  
  1. They've had robotic lawn mowers for at least a decade now.
  2. Roomba
  3. No, it doesn't need to be cured. If some rich people can make lots of money on it, it'll get done, but if not, it won't.
  4. What's the economic incentive here?
  5. economic incentive?
  6. economic incentive?
  Sure, those big projects could employ lots of people and improve the economy overall, but they need big investment, from a government or group of governments. With the current trend of government being sold out to the 1%ers who only will undertake a project if it'll be wildly profitable in 3-5 years and the idiots in the general population not wanting to spend tax money on such things, those projects aren't going to be done.
  How will we motivate people to get advanced educations?
  We won't. Society will collapse into anarchy, or governments will engage in widespread extermination programs to eliminate excess population.
21. Re:Is labor dying? by sl149q · 2012-10-04 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  I simply don't know.
  But obviously something. For example the vast majority of people who worked on farms 100 years ago are simply no longer needed there. Something like 50% of the population was needed to produce the food we eat back then. So one would assume that if the unemployment rate is less than 50% then something else must have popped up to for those people to do.
  Ditto for most any manufacturing job that was done in the middle of the last century. E.g. the number of people required to build a car in 1950 vs. 2010. Yes, some of those jobs have gone overseas. But even if you pulled every one of them back on shore you would find that the number of people employed in the automotive industry would still be FAR less than it was 20-30-40 years ago. And they would be producing FAR more cars per employee now.
22. Re:Is labor dying? by jamstar7 · 2012-10-04 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  ...and the rest of the world to be left in the dust fighting to survive miserable lives.
  You don't seem to get the idea of the singularity. If a tiny fraction of the technology it develops is useful to baseline humans, then those humans will be leading lives of undreamed-of power in modern terms, miserable only compared to the transcendii. Well, either that or they'll be dismantled and turned into smartdust.
  Why do I have problems believing that? Observed trends in my lifetime say expectations will continue to lower, the rich will get richer and own what little they don't already own, and the middle class will disappear. Even the superbright potentials among us will be stuck in the 99% that live on the dole ('People Chow', anyone?) with no way to escape. The 'baseline humans' you talk about will probably only belong to the 1% that owns everything worth owning. Forget the military, we're almost to the point of automating it already.
  
  --
  Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
23. Re:Is labor dying? by Krneki · 2012-10-04 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  Look no further then slavery in Roman empire.
  
  --
  Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
24. Re:Is labor dying? by AmiMoJo · 2012-10-04 22:34 · Score: 1
  
  Jobs that disappear will be replaced by different types of job. That is what always happens.
  Programming is an interesting example. It might have been expected that by now software would be incredibly easy to write, so easy that almost anyone could do it using a GUI and stitching modules together. Never happened though. The tools got better so we used them to write more complex software, raising the bar to keep to well above unskilled labour level or the point where machines could do it.
  That is the point - there will always be jobs that machines can't do, particularly in service and creative areas. It does mean that people need to have skills to do these jobs, and sure enough we now have a much more highly educated population than we 60 years ago when there was much more manual labour.
  Okay, eventually AI will reach a level capable of doing everything a person can do at a lower cost, but by then we should have reduced the amount of work each person needs to do to earn a living anyway. I know it is hard to see that happening in the US, but Europe is much more socialist and we really are trying to build a society that benefits everyone and doesn't just value people by their economic output.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
25. Re:Is labor dying? by dropadrop · 2012-10-05 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  Seems more and more jobs are being replaced by technology. What happens as the population grows but jobs dissapear?
  During the last years jobs have been outsourced to other countries with cheaper labour and I think the question has been the same... Now the jobs are being automated but it's still a question on the same issue. What's the answer?
  People could have objected to moving jobs abroad by supporting remaining local companies, thus sending a signal that the downside to moving manufacturing far east is a loss in sales from people who want to support the local economy. This never really happened as at the end of the day people do want to buy things cheaper, and end up choosing the product made abroad... Same thing will happen with items that are built by robots, people will buy them if they are cheaper, but as an issue it is a bit different.
  Regarding moving manufacturing to Asia I always thought that there would be a tipping point when people would really start to take this seriously, and change their buying habits. I have no idea when that tipping point would come, but the later the more dramatic as at some point the effect of lost jobs will spread wider and wider in the economy. For automation it's different, as this is part of a progress that started with the industrial revolution and is just moving forward. It's always been inevitable that certain workers are replaced with robots, and the speed will probably increase as robots improve.
  From one article here in Finland I remember a mention about horse charriot chauffeurs that used to bring all the merchandise from warehouses to shops. At some point they went on strike due to fear of being replaced by trucks that could move a lot more items and a lot faster. They are still on strike as far as I have understood...
  I like mountainbikes, the higher quality ones. Most of them used to be hand made in the US, but one by one the manufacturers have moved production to taiwan. Most of them are also no longer hand made, rather welded by robots. Originally moving the production brought prices down, but apparently labour costs have been rising very quickly in Taiwan, and somebody claimed that all expenses included they will probably soon be close to the costs of manufacturing in the US (especially for smaller boutique brands that can't benefit from huge volumes). Manufacturing in the US also has the advantage of easier prototyping and more agility in getting a new product to shops. However having a very expensive US hand made frame (from Intense Cycles) I'm not 100% convinced hand made is a very big bonus. It actually seems that robots have much more even quality standard while hand made means it's a question of luck on who happens to be welding it and is it done on a Monday morning, Wednesday afternoon or Friday just before leaving to a bar. I expect my next bike to be made by a robot just because that will make it less likely to have to deal with warranty replacements... Everything has two sides and a lot of shades of grey.
26. Re:Is labor dying? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-05 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  So far, every time we reduced the human labor in one sector, we invented another sector which required a new set of human work.
  But said another sector is not necessarily as big as the previous one. And this assumes that we can keep up the pace, which is not necessarily so.
  Eventually - and my guess is that would be pretty soon (as in decades, not centuries) - we will be in a situation where the needs of our civilization are fully satisfied by only a few people in it doing productive work. How we manage it is up to us. One thing for sure is that capitalism as it is today is not going to work in such an arrangement.
27. Re:Is labor dying? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-05 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Some of that could use automated labor as well. However, these are all areas where more labor could be devoted. The big challenge is that most of that needs higher education in a technical field.
  Well, when you don't have to work for a living, you have plenty of time to get higher education in a technical field. Several, even.
  
  The big problem with the future is the possibility that it will be too easy not to work. If one person can buy a robot that is capable of building arbitrary things, including another robot, then that person could have the robot build another robot and give it to a friend. Repeat that seven billion times, and everyone in the world has their own robot. Assuming we have easy space capability by that time, we can send the robots out to the asteroid belt to mine resources and move into space mansions.
  So what's the problem?
  
  How will we get people to do things like research and design? What will be scarce and tradeable? How will we motivate people to get advanced educations?
  Well, we don't need to motivate every single person to do things like R&D or educate themselves. Think about how many people you personally know who do that kind of thing for their own personal amusement. Now also take into account all the people who have aptitude for it, but cannot implement it today because they hail from a poor family and are stuck in a minimum wage job.
  It doesn't take a million PhDs to design a moon base. It takes a million robots to build it after it's designed, but as you've said yourself, once you have robots mining resources and building other robots, that problem is solved.
Humanity's requiem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 10:12 · Score: 1

Yes, but China has shown repeatedly--no matter whether it's communists or the old guard before WWII--that they are willing to slaughter huge numbers of people to maintain stability.
The culling of humanity is beginning. Soon it will be just 1 million or so people left served by robots. Are you going to be one of them?
Robots building iPhones? Who cares? by Anubis+IV · 2012-10-04 10:16 · Score: 2

What we really need to worry about are robots building robots. That's when they finally don't need us any more and can rise up as our oppressors. That's the beginning of the end, man. The beginning of the end.
1. Re:Robots building iPhones? Who cares? by DM9290 · 2012-10-04 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  What we really need to worry about are robots building robots. That's when they finally don't need us any more and can rise up as our oppressors. That's the beginning of the end, man. The beginning of the end.
  The end will come before that. When the majority of population can no longer perform as cost effectively as machines. This is sufficient to cause the entire economy to collapse.
  It makes little difference if 100% of the human race is less cost effective than robots, or merely 50%.
  We might already be at that point if only the price of the most capable robots and computers came down sightly. With perhaps another decade or 2 of software development.
  
  --
  No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Not only... by busyqth · 2012-10-04 10:17 · Score: 4, Funny

iPhone 7 : Not only built BY Robots, built FOR Robots!**

(**Like all iPhones)
Oh Good by StillNeedMoreCoffee · 2012-10-04 10:24 · Score: 2

Now Apple is going to put Chinese workers out of a job. I can see it in 20 years, the CEO and CTO the only ones raking in the money, in their automated office with roomba's (made in Poland) cleaning up the office after hours and their Google driverless cars taking them home, to their Toyota robot butler opening the door...
1. Re:Oh Good by mspring · 2012-10-04 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Who will buy all the shit, if they don't make money?
2. Re:Oh Good by sl149q · 2012-10-04 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm waiting to see the riot when the two groups of agitators meet in front of Foxconn. One group complaining about Foxconn overworking its employees. The other group complaining that Foxconn is underworking (aka laying off) their employees. News at 11:00 brought to you by the Western World 24 hour news channels...
3. Re:Oh Good by no1nose · 2012-10-05 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  In the future of tomorrow, where everything is built by robots, I think I will need to own a few robots to eek out a living.
4. Re:Oh Good by painandgreed · 2012-10-05 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Now Apple is going to put Chinese workers out of a job.
  Doubtful. One of the main reasons that Apple is not already using robots is because they can retool the entire production line in hours. Can't do that with robots. New part comes in, they wake the workers up, give them a donut, coffee and some training, then get them to work. It'll take longer than that just to swap new robots for the old robots.
Robotic people by girlintraining · 2012-10-04 10:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

"For now, humans are still a cheaper and more practical choice."
That's been the argument about labor since the dark ages. Slavery was cheaper than horses. The pyramids were built by people dragging slabs up the sides using ropes and pulleys; Even though it's almost a certainty that the Egyptians knew of more advanced engineering. They also buried the slaves (alive) with the king when he died. The question has never been whether humans are cheaper than machines: The larger the size of the labor pool, the lower the cost of labor. Supply and demand; Basic economics.
The question has been how workers are treated, and what level of servitude a society is willing to accept for some, or all, of its members. Even by the laws of the United States, what China routinely allows with its workforce is inhumane. I say this with the full knowledge that my country has some of the worst labor laws in the first world -- the fewest number of vacation days, the spread between what the head of a company is paid and its entry-level workers the highest of any country on Earth, and a grossly underfunded federal workforce safety department.
We shouldn't be doing business with them; They don't even have child labor laws worth a damn. But they have a lot of our money and they're cheap. For many countries, that's enough. I wish it weren't -- where are the europeans' "citizens of the world" speeches when they really matter? You're just as guilty as we are, that's why. Until human rights are something afforded to our enemies, as well as our friends, then we should be honest with ourselves: Nobody really has human rights. What we have... are privileges. And we live our lives in comfort because a significant portion of the world doesn't, and we aren't willing to help them get them.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Robotic people by DigiShaman · 2012-10-04 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Truth hurts. Thank you for making me hate myself.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
2. Re:Robotic people by girlintraining · 2012-10-04 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Truth hurts. Thank you for making me hate myself.
  Negative emotions can lead to positive results. Becoming angry at an injustice provides an impetus for challenging it. Don't be upset if you're "hating yourself", be upset only if you were apathetic after reading it. The only thing required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
3. Re:Robotic people by dadelbunts · 2012-10-04 11:25 · Score: 2
  
  Except the pyramids werent built by slaves at all. They were built by labor forces probably consisting of farmers that were looking for more money during the dry seasons. They were also provided stellar health care for the time being, something which slaves are not.
4. Re:Robotic people by khallow · 2012-10-04 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  The pyramids were built by people dragging slabs up the sides using ropes and pulleys; Even though it's almost a certainty that the Egyptians knew of more advanced engineering.
  What more advanced engineering? Rope and pulleys is pretty advanced for Egypt. And what does this have to do with the horse versus slave claim? The world didn't have good work horses at the time of Egypt. Those were bred later. And when good workhorses (and other beasts of burden) did appear, they replaced a lot of human labor. But slavery didn't go away, not because human slaves were somehow cheaper than horses, which frankly, they aren't, but because humans could do things that horses couldn't. Such as pick cotton.
  
  The question has been how workers are treated, and what level of servitude a society is willing to accept for some, or all, of its members. Even by the laws of the United States, what China routinely allows with its workforce is inhumane. I say this with the full knowledge that my country has some of the worst labor laws in the first world -- the fewest number of vacation days, the spread between what the head of a company is paid and its entry-level workers the highest of any country on Earth, and a grossly underfunded federal workforce safety department.
  
  So what? All the work we throw to China makes it a better place (and better safety regulation will follow). While all the work we chase out of our own countries with ridiculous safety regulations makes us less well off (with worse safety regulations to follow).
5. Re:Robotic people by girlintraining · 2012-10-04 15:03 · Score: 1
  
  What more advanced engineering? Rope and pulleys is pretty advanced for Egypt. And what does this have to do with the horse versus slave claim? The world didn't have good work horses at the time of Egypt.
  
  Horses were first domesticated around 4000 BC, and were considered to be widely domesticated by 3000 BC. Camels, which were much more suited to desert work, were first domesticated during the same time period, although there is evidence that domestication of camels may have occurred even earlier. The first Egyptian pyramids were made around 2630 BC. That's about 1,600 years later for either horses or camels.
  Since your entire argument is based on that fact, it's Myth Busted for you. Let's see how your other claims stack up...
  
  All the work we throw to China makes it a better place (and better safety regulation will follow).
  
  Better safety regulation doesn't naturally flow from more economic opportunity; The United States has the largest GDP of any country. It consistently ranks dead last amongst the so-called "first world" countries in worker rights, and is notable for its lack of a labor (labour) party, which most European countries, as well as Canada and Australia, etc., all have. This one, I'm going to have to go with "Not Plausible"
  
  While all the work we chase out of our own countries with ridiculous safety regulations makes us less well off (with worse safety regulations to follow).
  Until the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the expansion of the H1-B visa program, and numerous other agreements and laws under the umbrella of globalization, our country's middle class and our GDP grew lock in step and at many times the rate it has since. As the wealth disparity gap grew, our GDP growth year over year fell. Eventually, the middle class imploded, triggering a global economic crisis that continues to this day. We didn't chase the money away -- we let it walk out the front door to the sound of applause. This myth I'm going to have to leave as "Plausible", however, because macroeconomics is a complicated field, and it's hard to say for certainty the relationship between any of the variables I mentioned earlier. I believe the evidence supports my position, but I'm open to reasonable debate.
  ...But by someone who knows their history a bit better than you.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
6. Re:Robotic people by sl149q · 2012-10-04 18:17 · Score: 1
  
  Please people. Use google. Search "pyramids slaves"
  It is well documented that the Egyptian pyramids where NOT built by slaves.
7. Re:Robotic people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 20:47 · Score: 1
  
  The pyramids were not built by slaves, but volunteers. That's a common mistake.
  They didn't bury slaves with their kings. Only servants have been found - so they could serve their lord on the afterlife. But no slaves; they were not "worthy of the honor", I guess. The fact of wether they were buried alive is not a certain matter; there's debate among the academics - some think they were killed and then buried. Gruesome, yes. But a quick death is still preferable to a slow one inside a tomb. It's possible that they died voluntarily. This raises more questions about religion and zealotry than about human rights (although very often these two are intermingled).
  One does not have to look so far into the past to look for examples of abuse on the workforce. The United States, on his rather short story, has plenty of these examples. The trick is thinking of slaves as lesser beings - less human than "free men". While slavery is now eradicated fron the US, at least officially, the habit of thinking of others as "less important than our group" is still current. This is exploited by U.S. dirigents; it's useful for the nation to have "something to fear as a society". Nowadays, the "not as human as us" is the muslims. Before them, it was the communists. Maybe in the future it will be the Chinese.
8. Re:Robotic people by Grishnakh · 2012-10-05 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  This is exploited by U.S. dirigents; it's useful for the nation to have "something to fear as a society".
  For about half the American population these days, it's homosexuals.
9. Re:Robotic people by khallow · 2012-10-05 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  Horses were first domesticated around 4000 BC, and were considered to be widely domesticated by 3000 BC.
  
  Considered by who? Googling around, I see stuff like:
  
  Horses were introduced into Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (about 1700-1550 BC).
  
  That's around a millennium after the construction of the Pyramids.
  
  And metal horseshoes, which considerably increased the endurance and value of horses, weren't apparently invented until some time between the 2nd century BC and 500 AD.
  
  It really doesn't make sense to claim that human slaves are cheaper than horses. And your claims about history simply don't support your argument.
  
  Better safety regulation doesn't naturally flow from more economic opportunity
  That's not based on actual history. Every place which has increased its standard of living invariably has improved safety regulations as well. It's really quite simple. When the value of a person is low, then there's not much reason to have safety regulations. When the value of a person is high, then that is something worth protecting and we see subsequent regulation to that effect.
  
  The United States has the largest GDP of any country. It consistently ranks dead last amongst the so-called "first world" countries in worker rights
  This is a little bit of doublespeak. "Worker rights" have little to do with actual benefits to workers.
  
  As the wealth disparity gap grew, our GDP growth year over year fell. Eventually, the middle class imploded, triggering a global economic crisis that continues to this day. We didn't chase the money away -- we let it walk out the front door to the sound of applause.
  Well, it should be obvious that if the supply of labor increases, then the amounts paid for that labor will drop. That's what we've seen. The "implosion" of the middle class? That hasn't been seen, although it's interesting how much destructive political policy has been directed to making that happen.
  
  As I see it, when labor is under threat from cheaper labor, one is extremely foolish to make that labor more expensive (and of course, even less competitive) by creating taxes and regulations (such as the alleged "worker rights") that make that labor more expensive and by driving up the costs of living (for example, the expenses of housing, health care, and education). Or by ignoring or actively harming the businesses that employ most people.
Good question by TopSpin · 2012-10-04 10:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

Your specific question (if robots, why China?) was answered directly a few years ago by Terry Gou, Chairman of Foxconn. According to Terry, the US has "too many lawyers." Linky here.

--
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
once they're done... by tommeke100 · 2012-10-04 10:31 · Score: 1

... they can remove the nets from their factories/dorms.
And, of course... by Sketchly · 2012-10-04 10:31 · Score: 1

..robots won't commit suicide by jumping out the windows.
Grateful for Work by pubwvj · 2012-10-04 10:39 · Score: 2

Hmm... those rioting workers should have been more grateful for their jobs. The sly fox has a solution to worker unrest. The current version of robots do not strike or riot.
Re:Today's technology = DUMB! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 10:39 · Score: 1

The Chinese workers are living a true hell working in those factories.
And yet they choose it over an agrarian lifestyle.
don't care by badford · 2012-10-04 10:45 · Score: 5, Funny

robots would be cool, i suppose. I am reading this on my iphone 5 that I stood in line 23 hours to get. I got it at the Apple store. It is made by Geniuses (Genuii?) Everybody asks me about my thin new phone. It is thin and light and had a bigger screen than the crappy old iPhone 4s. sure the maps could use a little work and the lightning power cord costs crazy money but hey, I 'm hip and people adore me because I have an iPhone5 I'm sure the people who made it are well treated and probably just like me: 30 something, stylish, hip and know their way around a wine shop.

--
-badford
1. Re:don't care by badford · 2012-10-04 14:40 · Score: 1
  
  "I 'm hip and people adore me because I have an iPhone5" Citations please.
  "I predict, in the future that is, that a man going by the name badford will exhibit supreme hipness by carrying a handheld communication device that is thin and incites envy among those carrying lesser devices", Hunter, Billy Joe. The Future Cool. New York: Macmillan, 1963
  
  --
  -badford
2. Re:don't care by girlintraining · 2012-10-04 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure the people who made it are well treated and probably just like me: 30 something, stylish, hip and know their way around a wine shop.
  It brings an almost orgasmic pleasure to me to think of all you hipsters slaving away on an assembly line, the acrid smell of solder and flux heavy in the sweltering heat, listening to obscure hipster music playing in the background, smiling while their coworkers pass out next to you from exhaustion, so deluded they think they're actually living the good life.
  But then I realize that it's people like you that are the reason teenagers and young adults are pissing away their lives for pennies an hour, living in giant dormatories with suicide nets strung outside the balconies to catch workers who can't take it anymore... because that's what's expected of them and there's a hundred more just like them willing to take their place.
  ...All so you can get a 15% discount off the price of a piece of equipment you only bought to impress your friends. Drink up, hipster. Drink all the wine. You're gonna need it to drown your conscience.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
3. Re:don't care by Grishnakh · 2012-10-05 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  It brings an almost orgasmic pleasure to me to think of all you hipsters slaving away on an assembly line, the acrid smell of solder and flux heavy in the sweltering heat
  Solder fumes shouldn't be a problem with adequate ventilation. Every decent assembly-line reflow oven has a big duct that's connected to a powered vent system leading outside. The only solder fumes should be from manual rework stations manned by humans, and in fact, there really should be zero need for humans in the soldering and electronic assembly process, as this is usually all fully automated (except sometimes for placement of larger through-hole components like connectors). The only time humans should be handling soldering equipment for a high-volume product is during the development process when some rework of prototype units may be necessary.
4. Re:don't care by MooseTick · 2012-10-05 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  best citation ever!
  Hunter, Billy Joe. The Future Cool. New York: Macmillan, 1964
  
  --
  Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
No. It won't. by slickepott · 2012-10-04 10:46 · Score: 1

Will MY next iPhone be built by robots?
I'll NEVER have an iPhone.. so no.
1. Re:No. It won't. by Belial6 · 2012-10-04 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  What does him buying a Samsung Galaxy III have to do with the iPhone?
It's been done. by Animats · 2012-10-04 10:48 · Score: 2

It surprised me how much labor goes into iPhone manufacture at Foxconn. Cell phone assembly was automated years ago by Motorola, Nokia, and Sony. The iPhone form factor doesn't change much from year to year, and the volume per model is high. That's the ideal case for automation. Only very low salaries make it possible to do the job cost-effectively with humans.
1. Re:It's been done. by sl149q · 2012-10-04 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  Except that for China Foxconn pays relatively high wages.
  They use people because it allows them more flexibility in changing their production lines to adapt to their customers (Apple, Samsung et al) and higher quality where needed.
  That said they will move to robots where possible when possible where it saves money, time or improves quality.
A stupid sounding guy just called me.. by bdwoolman · 2012-10-04 10:51 · Score: 2, Funny

He said "Bite my shiny metal Android. I'm usin' my iPhone to order more beer. Oh crap! A touch screen. Metal. fingers. useless. I need a human hand. Where can I get one. C'mere you..." Then I heard screaming and was disconnected.

--
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
1. Re:A stupid sounding guy just called me.. by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-10-04 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  Strange. I just got a call from someone on a bad connection that made him sound like he had an electronic sounding voice Bad connection or not, he was really monotone and seemed manically depressed. He kept going on about having a brain the size of a planet and how bad his life was at Foxconn.
Agreed. Philips uses people in China... by bdwoolman · 2012-10-04 10:59 · Score: 1

And robots in the Netherlands to build the same shavers.

--
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Not at this price by dlenmn · 2012-10-04 10:59 · Score: 1

It's not quite as simple as technology meaning fewer jobs. There are a lot of jobs out there which could be automated but aren't. Why? Because labor is cheap.
This even holds in the US, although you can see technology chipping away. For example, a robot to scan and bag groceries wouldn't be too complicated -- most of the setup is already automated with a conveyor belt, barcode scanner, automatic change dispenser, etc. However, it hasn't been completely automated because paying someone minimum wage to put your groceries in a bag is still cheaper than a robot.
Changes could come as technology gets cheaper, but they could also come if labor becomes more expensive -- something a lot of people are pushing for, directly and indirectly.
It's not clear how this all might work out, but some of the possibilities aren't pretty. Part of the problem is that there would probably be an ~18 year delay between changes in the demand for labor, and changes in the supply of labor...
1. Re:Not at this price by Jeremi · 2012-10-04 11:06 · Score: 2
  
  For example, a robot to scan and bag groceries wouldn't be too complicated [...] However, it hasn't been completely automated because paying someone minimum wage to put your groceries in a bag is still cheaper than a robot.
  Around here it has -- they figured out that you didn't even need a robot, you can just get the customer to do all of those things himself. It's genius, I tell you!
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
2. Re:Not at this price by sl149q · 2012-10-04 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'll take an automated checkout any day. Almost always faster and less fuss. Gets me out of the store.
  In short, I tend to shop at super markets that have them. Simply to save time.
How many of you remember when that was Jobs' view? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-04 11:01 · Score: 1

How many of you remember when Apple was making a whole lotta profit off of the Apple ][ line and Steve Jobs spent a whole lot of that money on the Macintosh robot assembly line?
And I'm betting no Slashdot readers remember the dream of a 'no need to work' society back at the start of the 20th century that looked back on a few of Greek society and helped to spawn Technocracy?
Like it or not - such a 'workless' society will automate a whole lot of people out of a job. What you gonna do when automation comes for you?
iJudgement Day by Dyne09 · 2012-10-04 11:28 · Score: 2

Oh shiz! Foxconn worker riots were bad enough. Can you imagine an army of factory robots rising up against their masters? Apple would usher in the robot apocalypse. Android - The iPhone Killer
Foxconn is Taiwanese - the "other China" by kroyd · 2012-10-04 11:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

.. and the robots will be be located in Taiwan, at least for now: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57318260-1/foxconn-to-build-taiwan-robot-kingdom/
Sure, it is possible that they will start building mainly robot based factories in mainland Chinal, but why bother? In its purest form a robot factory would just take raw materials and energy as input, with product as output. You want to place a factory like that in a location with a really stable energy supply, good infrastructure, and a stable political situation. Staff costs wouldn't be such a big issue, since you wouldn't have too many staff anyway. So, why choose China, where you would have to deal wiith rampant corruption, bad infrastructure and millions of starving former factory workers?
Personally I would put the factories in Japan, northern Europe and Canada, that way they would be closer to the consumers as well. It would certainly save a fortune in security!
1. Re:Foxconn is Taiwanese - the "other China" by coofercat · 2012-10-05 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  Don't put it in china because the million-strong robot army will put (say) half a million Chinese out of work. China's almost leap-frogging itself here. If a handful of the factories start putting vast swathes of Chinese out of work, then you'll have the same problems the west has. That is, only a small percentage of the population will be bright and educated enough to work in the human-only jobs, and the rest will all have been displaced by machines. The many will be supported by the few, and the very few will sit atop vast fortunes. Then you'll see Africa as "the new China".
Re:Slightly off-topic by HornWumpus · 2012-10-04 11:40 · Score: 1

Already there, long ago. 98% of the human race used to work on farms. 96% of their jobs have been automated.
Why aren't we already starving in the streets? Because freed of the need to scrape food out of the ground most people found _more_ productive things to do. Note: Most, some can't hack it. They can't hack it as modern farmers ether. These are mostly stored away where they can do little damage, university soft science departments and selling things to each other.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I like to ask this everytime by rsilvergun · 2012-10-04 12:22 · Score: 1

one of these stories comes up. So I'll ask this time too. What are we suppose to do with all these people we don't need anymore? We can't just give them food, housing and healthcare if they don't work for it. That's Socialism, bordering on Communism (yes, I know ones a subset of the other. I'm trolling here, give me a break).

And yeah, I'm Trolling. But I'm trolling out of deep fear and frustration. I'm not one of the 'haves'. My Dad not only didn't give me shit, he's blowing anything that would resemble an inheritance on the medical care needed to keep himself alive (the selfish bastard). Oh, and in case you haven't figured it out I'm in America. Where else could I have the resources to post to /. but a healhcare system that rivals Somalia.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:I like to ask this everytime by Rockoon · 2012-10-04 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  You may have noticed that cost of most foods is highly sensitive to the cost of fuel, ergo the food itself is worth very little due to high levels of efficiency.
  
  All those big agricultural companies control their own distribution networks because the value they create and bank is mostly in the moving of the food to where it gets processed, and then to where it gets sold. Its like that guy giving away "free" learn-to-use-a-computer dvd's ... just pay $4.95 shipping and handling. The dvd itself, like food, is worth very little (less than a penny to press.) Getting it to people that want it is where the value is added.
  
  It isnt socialism to give away free food. Its socialism to deliver it free of charge. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a way to deliver food so efficiently that even an ardent free-market supporter such as myself can no longer call it socialism. Until then, thats someones labor moving that food around. They arent slaves. Using an accounting trick to make others pay for that labor doesnt change the facts that theres some slavery going on if you deliver the food free of charge.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
2. Re:I like to ask this everytime by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-05 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  You don't deliver the food free of charge. You produce the food and deliver it using the resources generated by the robotic workforce. As the jobs will disappear, this will have to be the way to go.
  Someone was proposing another solution: give people at birth a bunch of shares in the corporations. Then, they still remain involved, as investors, in the economic process.
iPhone? by hcs_$reboot · 2012-10-04 12:26 · Score: 1

Do you think the iPhone will keep being the phone everyone wants for long? The iPhone is currently at the very top of its popularity curve, still up thanks to the inertia of the original devices design/ergonomics coming from the late Jobs era. Cook performs incremental updates (4S, 5, ipad 3, or soon some reduced devices) to maintain the ghost alive - for how long?

In two years from now the "next iPhone" will draw much less attention.

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
1. Re:iPhone? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-05 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  They have the money, but can they keep their company creative? Microsoft couldn't.
  You're implying that Microsoft was creative at one time. I don't believe that to be true.
Beyond a jobless recovery by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-10-04 12:30 · Score: 2

Expanding on your great points: http://www.pdfernhout.net/beyond-a-jobless-recovery-knol.html
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Social Responsibility? by klingers48 · 2012-10-04 13:01 · Score: 1

Clearly Foxconn has none. This is going to put a lot of poor chinese factory workers out of a job.

Where's the supposed "people's" Communist party during all of this?
my "next" iphone? by LodCrappo · 2012-10-04 13:11 · Score: 1

impossible.

--
-Lod
Yes, it is by demon+driver · 2012-10-04 13:41 · Score: 1

Although it's still far from being completely extinct. Someone still has to design the iPhones and to design and build the robots. But more and more of that, too, will become automated, even in countries where labour is cheap, because technological progress will at some point in time make automation even cheaper.
What will happen? Instead of enabling people to enjoy more free time at decent living standards, more and more people will become jobless and thereby poor. Oh, and, by the way, because economic value can only be created by human work, both products and money will more and more lose their economic value, which will finally lead to world-wide inflation. The process has long since started, and the current financial and economic crises are only the first major symptoms of what is to come.
null labor cost by manu0601 · 2012-10-04 14:02 · Score: 1

They are about to get a null labor cost, and of course they will still try to avoid paying taxes. If we follow that path, nobody will be able to purchase the produced goods, which means the market will disappear. Will capitalism collapse because of its own victory over workers?
Re:Robot Factory Conditions? by HiThere · 2012-10-04 14:07 · Score: 1

Yeah, we're heading towards a "turtles all the way down" kind of thing. Well, at least until you get to the ore mined out by the robot miners and processed by the robot chemical factories. Which already exist.
Repair is a more difficult thing to address, but that's being handled by replacing faulty modules. (This was not first applied in space, but it's integral to the design of current expensive space gadgets.)
P.S.: I'm not claiming that we're currently at "turtles all the way down", merely that we are headed consistently in that direction across a *very* broad range of areas. Everywhere the focus is first to make human labor more efficient, then to define efficient in such a way the the labor can be automated, then, as it becomes cheaper to use a robot than a human, to replace the human labor.
Please note that this trend is not inherently bad. But whether it's good or bad is determined by social controls that are placed on it. Given the current social controls, it's terrible. That it could be worse is scant recommendation.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Prepare for breakdowns by sir-gold · 2012-10-04 14:39 · Score: 1

ABB, while being one of the biggest automation suppliers in the world, still manages to makes some of the unreliable automation products.
The ABB robots at the Chrysler factory in Belvedere, IL are notorious for overheating and shutting down even in mild summer temperatures, leaving dozens of workers just standing around for hours waiting for a robot to be fixed (which usually fixed itself once the control cabinet cooled off) before the line could be restarted
Re:No by Cinder6 · 2012-10-04 14:40 · Score: 1

The question is already answered in the summary, actually:

Foxconn will eventually replace human workers for much of its electronic assembly, but probably not in time for the iPhone 6.
So, uh, I guess that depends on if the theoretical "you" buys the next iPhone, or the one after that...

--
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines by mjvictory · 2012-10-04 15:09 · Score: 1

Will Your Next iPhone Be Built By Robots? As explained in the summary and article, for the most part: NO.
bring the jobs back to the USA!! by schlachter · 2012-10-04 16:21 · Score: 1

...and give them to robots

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Sigh. by PPH · 2012-10-04 16:58 · Score: 1

This will all end in tears. I just know it.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Where will they by maroberts · 2012-10-04 19:18 · Score: 1

get all the robots from?

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Some missing arguments in there by dutchwhizzman · 2012-10-04 20:15 · Score: 1

There are some arguments missing from your otherwise rather good observation.
First, China's environmental laws are such that building a factory in western countries will cost quite some extra money, due to the pollution and CO2 compensation that will have to be dealt with. This will make it less interesting to build in the west, if you're in it for the money.
Second, anything you build in China, will have all the technology of not just the product, but also the assembly copied. They will surely try to copy your western factory and products, but it will be quite a bit harder for them to do industrial espionage when the industry isn't in their own country. This will make it more interesting to not produce in China, or any other country that will benefit from copying your technology.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
1. Re:Some missing arguments in there by rally2xs · 2012-10-05 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  Pollution as another boogey-man that is going to stop the USA from winning in the manufacturing arena? Oh, please - we've revolutionized our pollution footprint with natural gas, of which we have oceans and oceans, and which has made the USA the country that has decreased pollution more than anywhere else on earth, especially in the greenhouse gas arena. The USA is going to experience a manufacturing resurgence, as workers in these 3rd-world s***-holes finally get fed up with jobs that are so bad they drive them to suicide, and then the jig will be up. If we just do something about our income tax vampire sucking the lifeblood out of American manufacturing, we can accelerate that probably 10-fold.
2. Re:Some missing arguments in there by KDR_11k · 2012-10-05 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  There's more to pollution than just CO2. A lot of industrial processes produce hazardous waste. In a badly regulated country you can just dump that in a public landfill or something, in a well regulated country you've gotta make sure you aren't spilling poison or acid on people. Many third world countries have problems with leaking oil pipelines, the leaking oil is destroying the environment and all it would take is to fix the damn pipes. Evidently the leaks aren't big enough to make the owners care so they just poison many miles of farmland.
  I don't think China can keep its environmental stance up forever, they've probably got a lot of capacity for environment abuse before it really impacts the people they care about but when that point approaches I expect them to tighten regulations.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Just *built* by robots? by Mythrix · 2012-10-04 21:13 · Score: 1

If I am to buy an iPhone, the next iPhone better be a robot!
"Jobless Recovery" by Overzeetop · 2012-10-04 23:47 · Score: 1

This has been happening for a while. Instead of the much anticipated 10 hour work week, we find that 40-50 hours is still the norm, but we need fewer people. With healthcare costs a significant fraction of the ongoing cost of an employee, along with training and other per-employee costs, it makes sense to maximize useful hours per employee rather than increase the number of employees to match the work needed. And with each increase in productivity, the average/minimum skill level to be productive increases. It's increasing orders of magnitude faster than humans evolve.
We didn't need 7 billion people on this planet. We won't need 8 billion. Things are going to get interesting.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:"Jobless Recovery" by Maxo-Texas · 2012-10-05 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  They've been working us 60+ hours a week at work.
  Once things tighten up enough from retiring boomers that it drops to where they can't make us do this. then unemployment drops from 6% to 4% overnight.
  2016.
  unless the robots get here first.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Well... by virgnarus · 2012-10-05 02:38 · Score: 1

I for one welcome our new robotic factory-working subordinates.
Re:No, magic Fairies by Reverand+Dave · 2012-10-05 04:34 · Score: 1

I agitated the fanboys apparently. They get butt hurt when you insult their sacred trinkets. Refer to Libya for more references.

--
I got here through a series of tubes
Re:Hopefully by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-10-05 06:32 · Score: 1

Libertarian Luddism? That's something new...