Slashdot Mirror


Noodle Robots Replacing Workers In Chinese Restaurants

kkleiner writes "Recently developed noodle-making robots have now been put into operation in over 3,000 restaurants in China. Invented by a noodle restaurant owner, each unibrow-sporting robot currently costs 10,000 yuan ($1,600), which is only three months wages for an equivalent human noodle cook. As the cost of the robot continues to drop, more noodle shops are bound to displace human workers for the tirelessly working cheaper robots."

46 of 531 comments (clear)

  1. And it begins by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hopefully, since China was the last big pool of cheap human labor, can we please finally now get on with dealing with the fact that we don't need 100% employment anymore? How can we ensure a quality life for everyone now that we know machines can do a lot of the work? By all means, people should still be able to work, but why yank away everything from someone who'd rather do something else?

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:And it begins by Githaron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How would you decide who gets a pass on having to work?

    2. Re:And it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'll take one for the team.

    3. Re:And it begins by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good luck, a lot of people wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they suddenly had an extra 50 hours a week (you need to include commuting time, lunches, etc) with no boss giving them structure and direction. Most people would just flop down on the couch and eat Cheetohs until they can no longer get off the couch.

    4. Re:And it begins by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I believe the science fiction story you want is:

      http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    5. Re:And it begins by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI China isn't the last big pool of cheap human labor. All the really low-skilled jobs, like textile manufacture, have already moved out of China into southeast asia, etc. Africa and Latin America are waiting in line as well, if they ever become stable enough. The Philippines and India are other potential sources of labor.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:And it begins by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Informative

      We need to first let go of the perverse idea that work is itself virtuous. Especially in the US, the more productive people get, the more they're working (and the less they're making on a real-inflation-adjusted basis). For a decent chunk of time, as people became more productive, their workload decreased and their leisure increased, but that trend stopped in the early 70's.

      But, heck, according to the video somebody else posted here, the property taxes I have to pay are alone more money than a noodle chef makes in a year in China and they keep going up, so the total picture isn't just as simple as "so then just work less".

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:And it begins by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Fairly simply. You can survive on your allowance. Want more than survival? Get a job!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:And it begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would rather work 5 days than 3. By the 3rd day off I am bored out of my mind.

      Might I ask why you aren't doing something creative with your time? Paint a picture! Compose a song! Write a novel! Design a game! Create some new cool software! Why are you just sitting around getting bored? USE that time while you have it!

    9. Re:And it begins by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If anything can be produced cheaply by robots, where are people going to find the minimal amount of work necessary to pay for things? Not everyone can be a robot repairman, or design the robots. Especially a lot of people who work unskilled labor: what are they going to do when robots can build houses or decks, dig pools, or landscape. Why would I go to a human mechanic that charges $250 for a repair (and where would I get that $250?) when I can go to a robot mechanic who does the job for just the cost of parts and overhead?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:And it begins by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Bingo.

      If you eliminate the need for somebody to do a certain task, then that doesn't simply mean that eventually we'll run out of things to do. Now money that was once spent on a noodle cook can be spent on something else. Whether the restaurant spends it on something else, or whether they lower their price so their consumers can spend their money on something else, that money doesn't simply disappear.

      The restaurant owner now has more income, so he maybe buys a nicer car.

      Or

      The customer now spends less on food, so now he buys some nicer shoes.

      See "opportunity cost". Or, if you've ever heard of the "parable of the broken window", that is the alternative to this (e.g. forcing them to hire noodle cooks when they don't need them.) This isn't an emerging "job loss problem" that needs to be solved. Socialist types will never understand or accept this, but the market will reach equilibrium. It happens every time, and it has been doing so since time immemorial. Sadly Oregon hasn't learned this yet, and they still force you to pay somebody to pump your gas in order to keep unemployment down, meanwhile they are one of the most unemployed states in the US.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    11. Re:And it begins by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If we started handing out the paycuts to the top capitalist class instead, who pocket the savings whenever they replace a worker with a robot, then the working class could receive the benefits of mechanization (same quality of life for less hours of work) instead of just the downsides.

    12. Re:And it begins by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Worse, many would probably start getting involved in basically anti-social movements and groups. Cult groups that provide an illusion of meaning to their lives.

      So basically those 50 hours will be spent helping some would be dictator gain power.

    13. Re:And it begins by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The masses bought into the propaganda narrative that growing working-class prosperity mid-20th-century was the result of capitalism, instead of counter-capitalist workers' movements (unionization, fights for minimum wages and improved working conditions). So, by the Regan era, advances for the working class were brought to a halt (even as the overall economy grew, the amount going to the masses stagnated while all the gains in productivity were given to the rich), and now thrown into full reverse (so the working class is seeing their remaining sliver of the economy trickle away into the pockets of the rich). Total economic productivity has continued to grow plenty to support a continuing trend of decreased work with higher standards of living, but the overwhelming majority of gains are captured by the top 0.01% instead of being distributed to the populace.

    14. Re:And it begins by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, Carnegie was a Monopolist, totally separate issue.

      Not everyone is cutout to be a banker, so what should they do?

      At some point we will have to realize that we have unemployable people and must do something with them.

    15. Re:And it begins by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Eventually the car and the shoes will be made by a robot. What then?

      Stop playing politics, this is not a socialist concern, just a human one. What happens when all work or enough that unemployment exceeds 25% can be done by robots?

      We used to work 100 hours, laws made that 40 hours. Without laws to enforce even shorter working hours or an more equitable split of resources all productivity gains are being captured by the top few percent. This argues against your claims.

    16. Re:And it begins by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's been well over a century since carpets needed to be handmade. The working class did receive the benefits of mechanization for about the first three quarters of the 20th century (including machine-made carpets and cloth) --- however, in the last couple decades of the century, the trend where increasing worker productivity also meant increasing wages/benefits came to a halt. For the last several decades, the American working class has continued to become increasingly productive, but has seen (inflation-adjusted) wages stagnate as all the benefits accrue to a tiny wealthy elite. Improved mechanization no longer means the working class gets more/better stuff for the same work; it means the working class loses jobs and wages, so they're struggling to afford even cheap Wal*Mart crap.

    17. Re:And it begins by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People aren't commodities. They're humans that have skills that they have acquired and (hopefully) chosen their skills to acquire based on their unique talents and abilities.

      If you want to rush head long into the future that's fine, but if you are a humanist then you have make provisions for the people you are going to make permanently obsolete. Hell, maybe humanist isn't the right word, maybe REALIST is more correct, because if you make classes of people obsolete you're spreading the seeds of revolution.

      You're right, but right now we have a ruling class that would just like the people who don't fall into the schemes to DIE. That's dangerous in the long term.

    18. Re:And it begins by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Interesting

      OK, here you go: a CNN report with chart of productivity and inflation-adjusted wages. Note how hourly compensation perfectly tracks steady productivity gains up to ~1980, then completely flatlines thanks to Regan era "trickle-up" policies (continuing into the present day) while productivity continues on the same upwards trend.

    19. Re:And it begins by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This actually made unemployment worse

      I never understood why "unemployment" was seen as "bad". In my eyes, 100% unemployment is the goal. Do you enjoy being forced to work just so you can eat?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    20. Re:And it begins by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But when the correlation empirically exists and causal mechanism is obvious, it's awfully hard to handwave away. Rich people keep more money from paying lower taxes and wages; invest in technology to let them fire workers while maintaining growing production levels; reap record profits, from which a smaller cut than ever is returned to improving middle-class conditions instead of further increasing the power of the rich. What else would you expect than the "rich get richer, everyone else gets poorer" obvious (and observed to be true) outcome of such a vicious cycle?

    21. Re:And it begins by PraiseBob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are assuming birth rates based on wealth, when really both wealth and birth rates trend based on education levels.

    22. Re:And it begins by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there is no possibility for income, why would anyone offer these?

      A bit of a loaded question; if goods and services have no cost, and everything is free, why would anyone seek income? What would you do with said income if there was nothing to spend it on? Don't worry, I'll return to this point shortly.

      How will the robots be purchased by the businesses?

      Currently, businesses have capital. They can (and do) buy robots to further automate their workflows.

      Or, if businesses no longer need to exist, what would be the motivation for making the robots?

      Well, the robots would be made while businesses still exist. Once the existence of said robots obviates the need for businesses to exist, there need not be a motivation for making the robots, since the robots will have already been made. Of course, to make more robots, there would be no requirement for motivation, since the existing robots could make more robots, and robots don't need any motivation.

      Who builds and maintains the warehouses or storefronts where goods are stored and distributed?

      Why, robots, of course. Obviously we'd need an initial round of robots, but after that, nobody. Wasn't that the whole premise? That abundance of robots have caused to cost of labor and materials to trend towards zero?

      I don't mean who physically, but what entity controls them? The government?

      THIS. What sane capitalist would invest his fortune in the destruction of our capitalist system? Why would the Walton family want to rally together and fund the development of these magical robots that will only serve to bring about a world of free goods and services, a world where wealth is meaningless, a world where the Walton family sees no advantage over the proles? Indeed, it seems that the Walton family has quite the incentive to prevent the abundance of such robots, as do any other wealthy individuals.

      However, you posed your question in a fascinating way: who controls them? This presupposes that these robots need to be controlled in some sort of centralized fashion, or at the very least in a way that fits within our framework of private ownership. Why is this necessary? If these robots truly result in the cost of labor and materials to trend towards zero, then wouldn't the robots themselves have zero cost as well? If you have access to a robot that can do or make anything that a person could, and your neighbor doesn't, couldn't you simply have your robot make another robot for your neighbor? If there is an abundance of robots such that they have no associated cost, why would [restrictive] control over them be desirable?

      Moneyless societies are impossible. Without the requirement of needing money to survive, there is no motivation.

      This is a true statement only for as long as motivation is necessary.

      People are not going to labor and make stuff with no compensation but the guarantee that others are doing the same, this goes against human nature.

      This is true. That's why we're talking about robots doing the labor.

      Look at the Soviet Union for a classic example: people went to their jobs, but they didn't need to produce anything because they got paid regardless. If everything I want is free and just comes to me(or I can walk into a store and grab whatever I want) then what point would there be for me to make or do anything?

      This is true. The USSR didn't have these robots to relieve the people from their burden of labor.

      Society cannot be 100% automated. There will always be jobs that people have to do.

      I hope you're wrong here, but I'll settle for 99% automation. I'm okay with a 24 minute work week. On a more serious note, however, I'm not convinced that society cannot be 100% automated. Perhaps we won't be automating the production

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    23. Re:And it begins by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      We should work for our keep, for most of our lives. We're wired to need to - we value what we have if we work for it; otherwise we delight in destroying it.

      Studies of hunter-gatherer societies, typical of the evolutionary conditions for which humans might be "wired," indicate rather low typical work loads. Actual "work" time is typically 2-4 hours per day; interspersed with a lot of lollygagging about, chatting, telling stories, playing games, singing songs, sitting about pondering. Of course, there are sometimes brief periods of highly strenuous work and intense need. But the idea that humans are "wired" to need 40+ hour weeks of toil, instead of spending most of their time in leisure and "artsy" pursuits, is an artifact of the development of labor-intensive agricultural societies during the latest tiny fraction of human evolutionary history.

    24. Re:And it begins by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People are not going to labor and make stuff with no compensation but the guarantee that others are doing the same, this goes against human nature.

      Tell that to anyone who has ever written a book, played a song, painted a picture, or danced a dance without being paid for it. Tell that to anyone who has ever poured their time and money into a hobby with negative monetary returns --- taking photos, flying airplanes, watching the stars, climbing mountains, feeding the hungry, planting gardens, writing Free Software --- raising a family. Human nature is to ponder, create, aspire, help, love; to do so freely for the joy of living.

  2. YouTube link by psergiu · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukNkCnNJuR8
    YouTube link with the robots in action.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:YouTube link by psergiu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In fact, as is typical on slashdot, the "news" is about 7 months old, so there are a lot more related materials:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGvHxLEhC5A
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwAgZ2WLQyA
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEfqmBMydZw

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  3. Re:Why do you need a "robot"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1
    a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized
    b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically
    2
    : a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks
    3
    : a mechanism guided by automatic controls

    You're hung up on definition 1a.

    A vending machine IS a robot.

  4. It's not really a robot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not really a robot. It's simple kitchen appliance with dummy head.

  5. Not A Robot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is basically a simple Kitchen Appliance with a face attached. I don't consider this a 'proper' Robot.. If this is a Robot then me super-glueing a Barbie head to my washing machine makes it a "Washing Robot".

  6. Capital vs Labour by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whenever Marxists talk about economy they like to overstate the importance of labour and understate the importance of capital. They are of-course completely wrong, there is always a cost associated with labour and a cost associated with capital, the more labour costs the more it makes sense to use capital to decrease cost of labour and that's why we get labour saving devices.

    The first shovel displaced people from digging holes with their bare hands and sticks.

    The first excavator displaced thousands of people with shovels.

    Computers displaced untold numbers of individuals, millions upon millions obviously that's because computers are labour savings devices.

    In the process we make the operators of the labour saving devices so much more productive because they command these tools. Notice however that without capital (savings used as investments) no person can increase his productivity in any significant manner, you can't just dig with a shovel fast enough to be as productive as a guy operating an excavator.

    You can't count numbers with your ruler or an abacus or just a piece of paper and a pen as fast as a computer that runs a program. The person that operates the implement is now much more effective, much more productive than all the manual workers were, but of-course the number of workers that are needed go down dramatically.

    It's interesting to hear people talk about "productivity of the economy going up while employees who grow the productivity aren't ripping the reward, instead the owners do". Well excuse me, the owners created the productivity, not the employees.

    Employees are not adding to productivity, it is the owners, the investors, the capitalists that are improving their productivity. In case of the noodle restaurants the productivity of the owner (investors) of the restaurant is going up, he can serve more noodles with fewer labourers doing manual work, but it costs him the original investment into the labour saving device - the robot.

    People displaced by the robot are not increasing their productivity, they lost all of it, now they have to find a different job. However from POV of the market this is a very good development - the fewer people we need to do things that we do already now, the more supply of labour exists and so prices for labour go down and more businesses can be created because it takes less capital, less investment to hire people at lower prices to do things that were uneconomical while the cost of labour was more expensive before the labour saving devices were added to the economy and replaced these workers.

    It is a good thing for any consumer of goods to be able to buy more of them cheaper, to have more choice and to see more competition (even among labour and capital).

    The price of the robot is higher than cost of a human noodle cutter, the prices now will come down for human noodle cutter and more restaurants may even open because of this development.

    It's possible that most restaurants will eventually have noodle cutting robots and there will be a competitive advantage of having a human cut noodles, maybe somebody will advertise their restaurant as one that does not use robots, some people are gullible enough to prefer that, but that would be a niche item of-course.

    More importantly, the restaurant is now more productive, the labour market has more surplus so it may be cheaper for other businesses to hire labour, and that's great. As long as the government does not try to "level the playing field", as it is now in America trying to do for Brick and Mortar stores, that cannot compete with the Internet stores, that are obviously more competitive and can do more for less money.

    The government steps in and makes everything more expensive for one reason only: get more money for politicians. They can be on the side of a business that cannot compete in the changing business environment because of all the new labour saving devices (like the Internet, which is a labour saving device).

    The gover

    1. Re:Capital vs Labour by Wildclaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whenever Marxists talk about economy they like to overstate the importance of labour and understate the importance of capital.

      Umm, the whole concept of Marxism is basically based around technology causing capital to become increasingly valuable, eventually leading to the capital in a few private hands destabilizing the economy and society as a whole.

    2. Re:Capital vs Labour by dcollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find that telling capitalist proselytizers that they're actually restating Marx drives them wild.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  7. Re:Why do you need a "robot"? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because it has a head and Angry eyebrows, and glowing yellow eyes. Why build a machine that can be considered a tool to make your life easier, when you can build a robot that does the same thing and look like it will overthrow you during the next uprising.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. Re:obligatory "noodle" joke... by pr0nbot · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now all we need is an apostrophe robot that check's all our submissions!

  9. You are wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    From merriam webster:

    2: a device that automatically performs complicated often repetitive tasks

    It is a robot.
     

  10. Re:Why do you need a "robot"? by ubersoldat2k7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Great, so now two pieces of metal (arm) joined by some bolts to some motor and encased in plastic is a robot? And this is 2013 when we were supposed to be on flying cars and have robo-hookers. You suck humanity!

  11. Note on the noodle by grumpyman · · Score: 4, Informative

    A note that this is a specific type of noodle called "knife-sliced noodles". Obviously not all noodles are made like this nor all restaurant serve this type of noodle.

  12. reaching equilibrium will be painful by Chirs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Once all the menial jobs are replaced by robots, what do people that are only suited to menial jobs do? Not everyone can be a robot technician, and there will be fewer robot technicians than robots.

    Given that it is physically impossible for the economy to keep growing (due to resource scarcity if nothing else) at some point productivity increases must lead to either a reduced population or else a lower average work week.

    This is happening in North America too...here in Canada one of the major banks just got a bunch of bad publicity for shipping skilled technical labour offshore because it's cheaper. It's becoming a global economy, places with relatively high cost of living are going to have a tough time keeping their population employed.

    1. Re:reaching equilibrium will be painful by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who knows, but the economy will always find an equilibrium somewhere.

      And if this equilibrium is the masses living in miserable slums, patrolled by the private goon armies of a tiny super-wealthy elite, like the "economic equilibrium" produced in many third-world countries with extreme wealth disparities? I'm not comforted that some equilibrium will be reached; I'm quite concerned about what the structure of said equilibrium is. "Just let unregulated market forces decide" has a terrible track record for producing pleasant equilibria.

  13. Re:Capital vs Labour - They're made out of meat. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

    Socialist and communist don't mean the same thing, nor are either the exclusive domain of Marxists.

    Try less rhetoric and you might be a tiny bit convincing.

  14. Re:Why do you need a "robot"? by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A vending machine cooking dried (ramen-style) noodles will not dispense the same quality product as noodles made using traditional methods, which is what this robot does.

  15. Minimum Wage by srobert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Part of what's broken about the U.S. economy is the minimum wage. In 1968, adjusting for inflation to the current dollar, it was around $12 and hour, or so. Now it's $7 and change. And, unlike 1968, when it was the wage for teenagers working at fast food outlets, now more than 40% of the American workforce is earning less than the 1968 minimum. So how's that globalized economy working for you?

  16. Re:Why do you need a "robot"? by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My folks used to make home-made noodles for holiday meals when I was a kid. If their product was similar to the expectations of an Asian noodle, then I can definitely comprehend the practicalities of automating the process. Making noodles is not all that hard, so long as a supply of fresh raw materials is kept in supply; a machine could very easily turn out batches as good as what a person could so long as those maintaining the machine don't get lazy about the maintenance.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  17. Idle = Trouble by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is some truth to the saying, "An idle mind is the work-shop of the devil". Too many idle people is a recipe for mass social problems: drug abuse, crime, depression, gaming addiction, etc.

    It may be better to split up work and have shorter work-weeks, but more participants in the work-force.

    However, Republicans would have a hissy fit over such an idea. Reality has to bite them in the ass a hundred times before they even consider the possibility it's not 1780 anymore.

  18. Re:I for one by geekoid · · Score: 5, Funny

    Becasue nothing makes you feel like a man then having humans do menial work for you.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect