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."

Comments

And it begins

[50000BTU_barbecue]

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?

Re:And it begins

[Githaron]

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

Re:And it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take one for the team.

Re:And it begins

[SJHillman]

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.

Re:And it begins

[WillAdams]

I believe the science fiction story you want is:

http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

Re:And it begins

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:And it begins

[bill_mcgonigle]

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".

Re:And it begins

[femtobyte]

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.

Re:And it begins

[femtobyte]

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.

Re:And it begins

[NoImNotNineVolt]

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?

Re:And it begins

[femtobyte]

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.

Re:Why do you need a "robot"?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

It's not really a robot.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Not A Robot!

[Anonymous Coward]

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".

Re:reaching equilibrium will be painful

[femtobyte]

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.

Re:I for one

[geekoid]

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