Slashdot Mirror


Lenovo Announces Grand Opening of US Manufacturing Facility

Kohenkatz writes "Chinese PC maker Lenovo had a ceremony [Wednesday] to mark the official grand opening of their new manufacturing facility in Whitsett, North Carolina. The 240,000-square-foot facility, located approximately 10 miles east of Greensboro, NC, was already being used as a Logistics Center, Customer Solutions Center, and National Returns Center, and is now also being used for Production. While actual line operations began in January 2013, the facility is on track to reach full operation by the end of June. The facility is equipped to build several types of Think-branded products, including desktops, tablets, and ultrabooks. Note that due to the extensive use of automation, the factory only adds 115 manufacturing jobs at the facility."

107 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Recovering ground by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is probably aimed at some of the issues Lenovo's been having with people inferring that, because Lenovo's a Chinese company, that the Think line of computers are now unsuitable for business and government purposes due to the possibility of back doors and spyware build directly into firmware/hardware.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Recovering ground by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This has to do with government mandates that discourage purchasing computers manufactured in China. This does nothing to prevent the existence of back doors or spyware, but it makes the politicians feel good.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:Recovering ground by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I hope it will fix their crap quality. We have T30s that are still fully functional, save for being woefully outdated and bad batteries. On the other hand T61s have had their screens replaced every 18 months or so until the warranty runs out and then they are just unusable.

      The T line is unsuitable because the quality went straight to poop.

    3. Re:Recovering ground by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Pardon my ignorance but aren't LCD manufacturers mostly Taiwanese and Japanese? It's not like they're switching from Chinese panels to American ones (if there is actually such a thing as an American LCD panel).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Recovering ground by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Probably, but this is not a panel issue.
      The problem with these is the low quality backlights.
      Not sure where they get them, but decent QA would have found the issue and selected a different vendor.

    5. Re:Recovering ground by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      It also has to do with costs. A LOT of companies are moving production back to the US due to the cost. Business people are starting to clue into the fact that Chinese production isn't actually all that inexpensive when you factor in R&D, communication with the factories, Q/C, product lifecycle, shipping costs, and just general, overall ROI.

      For instance, Whirlpool has made a corporate commitment to move all Chinese manufacturing back stateside. They've already re-engineered a great number of their products, reducing production costs while improving the end result. (They're using a process on the manufacturing line which sounds a lot like Agile to me, actually.) I've bought a "Made in USA" dishwasher and water heater from them this year as a result: their products feel sturdier than the other cost-comparable products and honestly, are cheaper than most while still having better synthetics (eg. power use, noise rating, etc.) I haven't been displeased.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:Recovering ground by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I'm still using my old 760XL running Windows 98SE.

    7. Re:Recovering ground by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You should tell you boss to buy you a new computer, or are you a masochist?

      Windows 98SE was bad enough when it was new, it must really suck to use today. Heck, I bet most webpages would take ages to load.

    8. Re:Recovering ground by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      No, they're unsuitable for business because they're shit.

    9. Re:Recovering ground by mlts · · Score: 1

      Don't forget transportation costs. Fuel prices are in no ways stable, so we are hitting the point where it is cheaper for places to set up shop here in the US just so that things made are sent by rail or semi, compared to the cost of shipping them from the factory, then all the work with getting them on a ship and all the diesel the freighter uses.

      I wouldn't be surprised to see this happening more and more as fuel costs go up.

    10. Re:Recovering ground by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I never said I was using it as my main desktop computer. The thing is connected to legacy CNC hardware via the parallel port and the laptop isn't even connected to the network. Files are copied via CompactFlash cards and a PCMCIA adapter.

    11. Re:Recovering ground by mlts · · Score: 1

      I still have a 365XD with an old RedHat distro with custom pcmcia-cs code. Still has a 1.5 MB (yes, megabyte) PCMCIA flash disk from Sun drive (not Sandisk), and a combo 10baseT Ethernet card/modem that worked quite well as a smart firewall for a couple years until DSL was available.

      I would pay a price premium for something as solid as those old laptops, although I want one with a TPM chip [1], and Macbooks don't have that available.

      [1]: The technology cuts two ways, but with BitLocker, I can just enable TPM + USB, and if the laptop is ever stolen, if I have the usb flash drive (which will be on my keychain), I know that laptop isn't going to be decrypted by a thief barring them having the resources of a big company or major government. If I ever lose the USB flash drive, I pull up my phone, SSH into my home machine [2], copy/paste the recovery code, and be still able to access data.

      [2]: Google Authenticator two factor protection comes in handy if one isn't using RSA keys for SSH. Doesn't work with AD, but for logging locally to a machine, it is good enough.

    12. Re:Recovering ground by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Q/C

      This is the real value, as far as I can tell.

      I've gotten some good quality stuff from China, but also some really abysmal stuff.

      We got a John Deere lawnmower yesterday. The ticket says it was assembled stateside. I know that means the parts came from China (we got a low-end one) but I'm comforted knowing that somebody under a US QA system saw the parts before bolting them in. I'd like to think that any with serious metal voids or poor machining went into the rejects bin. If the finished goods came from China, then those things could be hidden inside the machine.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    13. Re:Recovering ground by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You have not done this in a while have you?
      The backlight is sealed into the panel assembly. It used to be you could take out the cold cathodes, but not anymore.

  2. Oh, hell... by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's actually happened...

    Now Chinese are outsourcing to us

    1. Re:Oh, hell... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's actually happened...

      Now Chinese are outsourcing to us

      This is the first thing that came to my mind. :-) Mind you, you could have ended up a lot worse: The Chinese could have outsourced to India and the Indian subcontractor could have outsourced it to the US. *That* would have been a sight.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Oh, hell... by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're outsourcing to robots really, not to us. It just happens to be convenient for the robots to live in North Carolina in this case, probably due to regulatory issues in some governments/businesses over purchasing Chinese-made computers.

    3. Re:Oh, hell... by Megane · · Score: 1

      Yo dawg, I heard you like outsourcing, so I outsourced your outsourcing so you can outsource while you outsource.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    4. Re:Oh, hell... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      They're outsourcing to robots really, not to us. It just happens to be convenient for the robots to live in North Carolina in this case, probably due to regulatory issues in some governments/businesses over purchasing Chinese-made computers.

      I'd imagine that this facility probably helps with turnaround time on custom orders as well. Popping in CPUs and option cards isn't terribly demanding work; but if you give customers the option to choose exactly what CPU/RAM/cards combination they want you either have to be really good at guessing ahead of time, willing to quote lead times based on container-ship speeds, or relatively close to the customer.

    5. Re:Oh, hell... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      And then the U.S.A. outsources the whole thing north, eh?

    6. Re:Oh, hell... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      If you want shovels of salt in your food, come to Canada. Some of our stuff is even worst in sodium content.

      On the bright side, every time I go to the grocery store it feels like a treasure hunt "Hey, look! I found something with only 10mg of sodium per serving!"

    7. Re:Oh, hell... by Mark4ST · · Score: 1
      I hope this new plant begins to make system boards for Thinkpads and the like. Right now they are made by Quanta (Taiwan), and the BGAs are terrible. Quanta has still not come to terms with lead-free BGAs, and it's been going on for years.

      Hopefully they can consistently make a system board that will last for more than 2 years.

    8. Re:Oh, hell... by mlts · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing is that robotics are something the US is very good at. Vehicle production is mostly automated.

      Of course, sometimes robotics get hair-pulling in ironic ways. I was trying to find a maker that could build me the mechanism for a raw hard drive autochanger (where it would take hard disks without any enclosures and mount/dismount them), and the only game in town was Siemens, and they were asking $10,000 a unit.

      I still wouldn't mind making a hard disk library that didn't have to have special enclosures around the HDDs, then software on the "head" to do whatever the user wants, be it a VTL, HSM with storage "swapped" in and out, or even a way to snapshot existing SAN volumes and store them independent of what data sits on them. Encryption would be as basic or as fancy as one wants (from a simple password where a hash is used as the key, to a key manager using RSA keys, and each drive having its own session key, etc.)

    9. Re:Oh, hell... by GodInHell · · Score: 1

      I don't give a shit why -- one of the issues that bothers me about outsourcing is the loss of manufacturing capacity within our own borders. When it comes time to convert manufacturies into war production facilities -- having them in China likely won't help us. Assuming that we ever have another war that will require a full national push.

    10. Re:Oh, hell... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      It's actually happened...

      Now Chinese are outsourcing to us

      [Insert "In Soviet Russia" joke here]

    11. Re:Oh, hell... by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      Management was outsourced to China.

    12. Re:Oh, hell... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Now Chinese are outsourcing to us

      Now that we've driven wages down, destroyed the unions and saddled our youth with hundreds of thousands of dollars of college debt so they're scared to death and desperate to take any job, we've finally made it cost effective for China to bring their Foxconn work camps here.

      Progress!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    13. Re:Oh, hell... by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Despite all the hype of recent years China's exports have not surpassed the US manufacturing output.

  3. Sounds like a lonely job by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Funny

    If the 115 employees all work the same shift and are uniformly distributed, then each would have 2086 square feet of floor space. That's a minimum spacing of 45.7 feet (13.9 meters) between employees!

    Correction: 45.7 feet between the _center of mass_ of each employee. So if we further assume the employees are spherical ...

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Sounds like a lonely job by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Based on what I see from the average american that seems like a totally reasonable assumption.

      My guess is that much of this will be automated and the humans highly concentrated at steps that cannot be automated for one reason or another.

    2. Re:Sounds like a lonely job by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      I think you are coming up with the maximum distance, not minimum .The minimum space is if management packed everybody into a closet and put a bear outside so the employees won’t mess with the robots.

      I would guess a large chunk of the factory floor is given over to inventory – either coming or going so employees would be backed slightly closer. I also assume each employee maintains multiple robots so they are probably not working elbow to elbow.

    3. Re:Sounds like a lonely job by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Unions require employes to have breaks, lunch time and vacation. Since the automated equipment was willing to work 24/7, they had to hire 115 people because the law requires factories to have at least one floor employee for every 2086 square feet of floor space.

    4. Re:Sounds like a lonely job by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The law requires the first two as well. Ideally it would require vacations as well.

    5. Re:Sounds like a lonely job by Beorytis · · Score: 1

      So if we further assume the employees are spherical ...

      A much more reasonable assumption with American employees than with Chinese.

    6. Re:Sounds like a lonely job by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Ideally it would require vacations as well.

      It does, here. And most of the civilised world, I believe.

    7. Re:Sounds like a lonely job by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Employees are there to power the machines, Matrix style.

  4. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by syntheticmemory · · Score: 2

    Next step, build robotic consumers to buy the products.

  5. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Funny

    With Bitcoins.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  6. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by nozzo · · Score: 2

    Next step, build automated factories to build automated factories to build laptops and robotic consumers.

  7. You know... by armahillo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're probably just trying to take advantage of that cheap American labor...

  8. Hooray! by skepticle · · Score: 1

    Does this mean the jobs are washing back over the Pacific? But... I only got replaced by an Asian worker being paid one tenth what I was for a third the quality of work a half a year ago! Guess my vacation is over...

    1. Re:Hooray! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      A small amount of the jobs. Expect maybe 10% of the jobs back, automation has made the rest unneeded, if you did factory work.

  9. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by TWX · · Score: 1

    Will it automate servicing the machines that build the other machines? Those grease fittings, bearings, valves, flow meters, circuit breakers, tool dies, taps, drills, and other things don't service themselves you know...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  10. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by doconnor · · Score: 2

    Actually the next step would be to replace capitalism, as it no longer makes sense in a post-scarcity society.

  11. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Without the poor and middle class, you can't have rich people. It's not strictly about money, it's about exclusivity - and money is an easy way to be exclusive. Capitalism in a post-scarcity society is all about maintaining class in a more traditional way, and (almost) nobody gives up what is "theirs" to others - especially those who value exclusivity and are currently at the top of the economic food chain.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  12. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Would they not want more exclusivity?

    By that I mean us peons will be driving robot made cars, but the 1%s will demand only hand crafted one off cars.

  13. min wage is higher and saftey costs are higher by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    In the usa you can't get away with lot of stuff that been happening at foxconn.

  14. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Those grease fittings, bearings, valves, flow meters, circuit breakers, tool dies, taps, drills, and other things don't service themselves you know...

    For now. Biological life shows that having a closed, self-sustaining complex system perpetuating itself by mere flow of energy and raw materials is not only conceivable but actually a reasonable proposition.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  15. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Will it automate servicing the machines that build the other machines? Those grease fittings, bearings, valves, flow meters, circuit breakers, tool dies, taps, drills, and other things don't service themselves you know...

    Not yet. But they will. It used to be that we needed humans to take parts from place to place in a factory, and do stuff to them. Then taking stuff from place to place was automated, the parts not only come down a belt or a chute but they get placed and fixed for the next step as well. The same will happen with the machines as well. A robot will trundle around and replace big compartmentalized components of the machines at first, with the big components sent out for rebuild. Later, the robots will reach into the modules and replace parts like bearings, but they'll do the job much better and faster than any human. Instead of holding a puller in their hand, they'll wear a hand which is a puller/pusher, though they may supply bearings to it with a humanlike hand so that it can easily handle a broad variety of sizes and styles.

    Tooling changes are already made by machine. It won't be long before the tooling is also restocked by a machine. We only don't do it now because we have really amazing tooling that lasts for some time, and there's not sufficient cost savings in it. It's cheaper to pay humans to run around and do these jobs because there are not standardized robots capable of doing them. Barring global cataclysm it's only a matter of time :)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. No, it does do some good by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A computer built in the US and shipped via American carriers is significantly less likely to be tampered with in transit. In China, you're trusting that there are no "stops" between the factory and the dock.

    It's just a step in the right direction. In that sense and that sense alone you are more correct than wrong.

    1. Re:No, it does do some good by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2

      What are the odds that the parts that are shipped from China will be extensively checked for malware by the US employee assembling the computer on behalf of the chinese company?

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:No, it does do some good by Ultracrepidarian · · Score: 1

      Zero?

    3. Re:No, it does do some good by mjwx · · Score: 1

      A computer built in the US and shipped via American carriers is significantly less likely to be tampered with in transit. In China, you're trusting that there are no "stops" between the factory and the dock.

      As someone who's had to follow DSD (Defence Signals Directorate) security policies, no OEM software ever survives. For sensitive computers we bought new hard drives and DBAN'd them before running up our SOE. We even had our own management cards (ILO/DRAC) for servers. To make sure the hardware wasn't suspect, random samples were disassembled. It didn't matter where the computer came from, it was made secure by us.

      Mandating that the secretaries computers in the department of land management cant be purchased from China is just to make the jingoists Feel Good(TM). DSD/DOD/MOD policies are implemented by the departments who have to follow those policies.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:No, it does do some good by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Agree.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  17. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    That was Steve Jobs' original vision at NeXT --- a fully-automated factory where raw materials came in one end and finished computers the other. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/12/24/business/all-next-inc-s-plant-lacks-is-orders.html

    The problem of course is how to sustain people who aren't / can't work. For a pessimistic view on this look at Manny by Marshall Brain: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  18. You know the US has hit rock bottom.... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    You know the US has hit rock bottom when the Chinese start opening factories here because of cheaper labour. :)

  19. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by TWX · · Score: 1

    Okay, then who'll service the machine that services the machines?

    And if it's a machine, who or what will service that machine?

    And that machine?


    All serious aside, my original comment was intended partially as a joke. Obviously the better the original design of a machine the less service it will need in its intended lifespan, but as humans that design things are not infalliable, there inevitably will be things that are missed. We sent the most expensive mirror in human history at the time of its construction into space in a flawed state, to the point that the rest of the instrument had to be redesigned around the faulty mirror.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  20. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by TWX · · Score: 1

    Biological life shows that having a closed, self-sustaining complex system perpetuating itself by mere flow of energy and raw materials is not only conceivable but actually a reasonable proposition.

    But it's amorphous and has no real goal, and is fragile and has a tendency toward chaos rather than order. It also functions because it has no designer, as opposed to the ordered design of a factory or other ostensibly-closed system that has a specific purpose.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  21. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment.

    Too bad it was a robot-made hammer hitting the nail.

  22. Re:I have a better idea by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

    Have a link to back that assertion up? I've not seen any Thinkpads in the past year or two which suck; the opposite is true: they all seem to be of surprisingly rugged quality.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  23. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    and has a tendency toward chaos rather than order.

    I thought that just about everything in this universe has a tendency towards chaos.

    It also functions because it has no designer, as opposed to the ordered design of a factory or other ostensibly-closed system that has a specific purpose.

    Well, in that case, it will either have to be self-adjusting or will require some limited maintenance on the organization level (as in a few people steering the system in a certain direction by means of programming, not maintenance as in getting your hands dirty).

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  24. Re:I have a better idea by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Toshiba and Sony, quality laptops? Why do you want to kill us with laughter so early in the morning?

  25. Great by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    Now, let's get some design and engineering departments out here because they obviously don't know shit about it out there. Seriously, have you *seen* the atrocity that is the current iteration of ThinkPad?

  26. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by moeinvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is no way to replace capitalism or free markets without using force and the threat of violence to scare every single human being into submission and eliminate those who won't submit.
    Then, you're right back to the system of haves(the enforcers) and have-nots(everyone else) that you were trying to replace.

  27. sort of offtopic but by nimbius · · Score: 1

    these arent really the kinds of jobs americans need. these will be 115 individuals of borderline cognitive function that load dispensers, change lightbulbs and drive forklifts. the jobs wont pay anywhere near a living wage, will likely specify "mandatory overtime" and preferentially select individuals who either have no concept of formal unionized labour or have had the notion beaten out of them from years of walmart servitude. Turnover will be high, regulation will be sparse. in this case the local government simply decided to go on a cocksucking contest and award absurd tax breaks for a factory that will likely leave the people as well as the state worse off than they were had the corporation never set foot.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:sort of offtopic but by mlts · · Score: 1

      It depends... Robots break, and someone clued enough to know what components need replaced can be fairly difficult to find. With computers, it is fairly easy... something on the motherboard dead, pull the board. HDD dead, pull that. With a robotic install, just ripping the robots out of the factory floor and replacing them if there is a hiccup isn't going to work.

      Automation eats jobs, but I don't think it is a bad thing. I'd rather see a robot be turning screws 24/7 than having to force a human get RSI disorders to do the same thing.

      However, I have my biases... one of my dreams for retirement is to buy a couple high-tolerance CNC mills, and do precise custom fab work, be it custom engine designs, or making one-offs to show something done and done right. For example, I've always wanted to duplicate some of the insanely complex bank vault locks from the 1800s, and with a CNC machine, it would be a lot easier to carve out the precise levers and the case that holds them. Done right, a well-made lever lock is decently pick resistant, although they fell out of common use due to their size.

    2. Re:sort of offtopic but by RobinH · · Score: 1

      Ok, but if pretty much everything manual is automated, what is the person just getting out of high school with no college prospects supposed to do? Soak in the welfare?

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  28. Re:I have a better idea by PAKnightPA · · Score: 1

    Honestly not sure I can say much about about quality comparisons, but I can say in 2012 they had number one market share in terms of sales to corporate customers worldwide [Source: Gartner]. Fourth in the US, but still, I would hardly say only morons buy them.

  29. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

    Will it automate servicing the machines that build the other machines? Those grease fittings, bearings, valves, flow meters, circuit breakers, tool dies, taps, drills, and other things don't service themselves you know...

    That's actually where most of the new jobs are going - the machines generally need daily maintenance and service and handling when things are just a bit off. But for the most part, all the dull boring jobs that took thousands of Chinese workers to do are replaced by robots.

    Manufacturing is not generally a nice job - it's boring mind-numbing work that really you do automate because with few exceptions, most people will not want to do it. The few exceptions would be those whose job consisted of a bit more than "put part A in slot B" once a second for 8 hours - e.g., heavy machinery manufacture (cars, trucks, etc) where people get 2 minutes to put on a part but in general at least have other coworkers to take the dullness out of the job.

    But robot maintenance and others are generally nice high-skilled trade jobs - especially ones that have to fix them when they break down and halt production. Of course, the robots are probably replacing 10-20 Chinese workers easily.

  30. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by doconnor · · Score: 1

    What do we do went human labour is a product that no one needs to buy? Why worry about the big evil socialist government stealing the product of your labour when your labour isn't worth anything?

  31. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Well then maybe the rich should compete with each other to see how many poor people they can maintain in the greatest amount of comfort and luxury? Some already keep pets in great luxury.

    Seriously though, there will NEVER be a post scarcity society. Most educated people normally try not to have more children than they can afford to support. But if someone else foots the bill completely many people may start breeding like rabbits. Then as the population increases you eventually hit scarcity again.

    So like it or not, there'll never be a "post scarcity" society, there will be limits one way or another. The tricky bit is how best to set those limits for the maximum good.

    If your pet dog could vote and kept full reproductive rights and other freedoms, you wouldn't be so happy feeding him and his generations of numerous descendants. No matter how cute they are.

  32. Manufacturing - a shitty way to attract jobs by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Employment in manufacturing is down against steady and healthy growth of the industry in the US due to automation. If you open a manufacturing plant you're going to get a small number of jobs for an operation of such size and cost, maybe some local robot purchases if you're lucky. If you want jobs, buy some time by finding an industry that can't be automated so easily. We don't rely on farms or textile plants for jobs anymore but nobody got the memo about manufacturing in general. I know it has that nice folksy blue-collar "we're MAKING stuff!" image but you have to let it go.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  33. Re:Please China by mlts · · Score: 1

    China did buy one of the largest hog farm companies in the US, so in a way, that wish is granted, as they now provide our bacon.

  34. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

    Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of worthy individuals, where "worthy" means "provides things other people want."

    Without the poor and middle class, you can't have rich people

    That's inflammatory and misleading language, which implies that the rich are suppressing the others. It assumes that rich and poor can only be used as relative terms; that there can be no absolute standard of rich and poor.
    In a just, productive society, the accumulation of personal property over time assures that any reasonable, fixed standard of "poor" includes a steadily decreasing portion of people.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  35. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

    Okay, then who'll service the machine that services the machines?

    And if it's a machine, who or what will service that machine?
    And that machine?

    I dunno, who treats your doctor? And your doctor's doctor?

  36. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

    We are not about to step into a post-scarcity society, so that's really irrelevant.

    --
    ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
  37. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    What do we do went human labour is a product that no one needs to buy?

    "Need" and "want" are different things. Some people will always want human labor or its results. "Hand crafted" always has its market.

    Why worry about the big evil socialist government stealing the product of your labour when your labour isn't worth anything?

    So many errors in one sentence! Labor will never be worthless. The underlying purpose of socialism is not to steal the product of your labor. It isn't even to steal your labor (slavery), although that's closer. It is to have total control over all aspects of everyone. Take a look at the trend of government education, where the goal is to control your mind.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  38. Re:I have a better idea by korgitser · · Score: 1

    [Citation needed]

    --
    FCKGW 09F9 42
  39. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by doconnor · · Score: 1

    Some people could choose to buy "hand crafted" and some people could choose to make it. That doesn't mean it would be anything like the situation we have now when virtually everyone has to sell their labour to someone (slavery).

    "It is to have total control over all aspects of everyone."

    This is the first I've heard of this. Can you explain further.

  40. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by fnj · · Score: 2

    The only alternative to the dreary yoke of capitalism which you can imagine is force, threat, violence, and submission? But capitalism is already the concentration of wealth into the hands of the privileged.

    Capitalism is ownership of the means of production by the privileged few. Socialism is ownership of the means of production by a faceless, merciless central state bureacracy in the name of the people taken as a mass. There is a better way. Distributism is ownership of the means of production spread as widely as possible among the people: individuals and small local cooperatives. Something like a system of guilds replaces the confrontational, adversarial labor unions and vast corporations of capitalism, or the smashing of individual enterprise entailed by socialism.

    When people are no longer pitted against other people (capitalism), or against the imposition of mass regimentation (socialism), brotherly love and charity could flourish.

    Let those of limited daring and imagination say why we have to submit to terrible, evil systems. The rest of us can dream of a better way and seek to make it happen.

  41. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by Synerg1y · · Score: 1

    I'll supervise.

  42. You're missing the point by MikeRT · · Score: 2

    There are several security loopholes here that China could theoretically exploit. Lenovo moving some manufacturing here is an attempt by them to deliberately close one of the big ones, which is what happens to goods in transit between them and their customers. The Chinese intelligence services are extremely unlikely to send people to US soil to pull some stunt because the last thing they'd want is for people connected to a program to sabotage American computer products to be practically in the federal government's lap.

    1. Re:You're missing the point by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Lenovo moving some manufacturing here is an attempt by them to deliberately close one of the big ones, which is what happens to goods in transit between them and their customers.

      Two problems with your theory:

      1. You assume a chinese company is immune from influence from chinese government. Lenovo is based in Beijing.

      2. You are only considering the product that is assembled within the US and not the components that are imported.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  43. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    All serious aside, my original comment was intended partially as a joke.

    The best jokes are always based on the truth, though, so if you have a particularly good joke you're probably near an insightful comment... or you could be, if someone took the time to leave it. Sometimes, I do.

    The serious answer to your question is that for a while these things will go out to human rebuilders in centralized locations, but eventually the machines will be standardized to the point that rebuilding is also automated; if the rebuilders are built out of standard components, then no humans need do anything (presuming robots can handle packing and shipping, which ought to be a safe assumption given standardized modules.) And of course, the shipping itself can provably be completely automated, so there's no humans needed there, either.

    As robotics technology continues to improve and mature, the need for humans to do work declines, yet we continue to insist that people do the same amount of it, or even more. This is clearly unsustainable...

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by sjames · · Score: 1

    Indeed, one day your labor will have negative value since it will cost more to keep you alive to work than a robot would cost to do the work.

  45. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    "The Midas Plague"?

  46. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Capitalism is not about exclusivity, it's about private ownership of the mean of productions (and implied is that such ownership is limited to a small group). A different system might still have stratification and class distinctions, but it won't be capitalism.

  47. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    There is no way to replace capitalism or free markets without using force and the threat of violence to scare every single human being into submission and eliminate those who won't submit.

    That's not true. The only thing that makes capitalism possible is society- and state-recognized (and enforced) private property. Which is to say, the government will intervene on your behalf and enforce your claim of ownership on some piece of land or a share in the company that you have never even set a foot in. Rescind that recognition and protection, and capitalism dies overnight.

  48. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    I'd rather eke out a living that way than live life as a drone in an anonymous apartment with a government approved # of square meters, a government approved food ration, a government approved energy ration, etc. etc.

    A post-scarcity society does not need a government to enforce socialism, it will just happen on its own (but it will need a government to enforce property rights that underline capitalism).

  49. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by lightknight · · Score: 1

    Amazing, isn't it? No matter what new system humanity dreams up, what ideals it attests to embrace...it all ultimately degenerates into a single form: that of the master / slave relationship. It's almost like it's a universal constant.

    --
    I am John Hurt.
  50. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by moeinvt · · Score: 2

    Do you think that "capitalism" itself or some cabal of elites within a system of capitalism is what pits people against each other? I tend to think of that as partially a result of hard-wired behavior. If you start out with the premise that you need to change human nature, or change everyone's viewpoint as a pre-condition to creating a better system, I think that entails force and violence or several generations of effort.

    I like your idea of distributed ownership and a more "bottoms up" production system. I think that if we free ourselves of the oppression inflicted on us by the government, that "capitalism" would look much more like what you describe. It is the concentration of power in the hands of government and the use of that power to pick winners and losers in the economy which drives the concentration of wealth. Without bailouts, handouts, subsidies, legal immunity and other special privileges that government hands out to an elite few (most especially the money creation privilege), millions of people could free themselves of the dreary yoke you describe.

    I dream of a better way, and I see government and bankers as the primary obstacles.

  51. Health care should be at the government level in t by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Health care should be at the government level in the usa and not on the works or employer. Even then they still have to have liability for safety and have and can get fined.

  52. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by fnj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I make a distinction between capitalism, which rewards privilege to a large extent, and free enterprise, which rewards industriousness and talent, though itself it makes no provision for hardship.

    I am not so sure I see human attitudes in quite so much the dark light that you do. For example, the majority of people will hold the post office door for you rather than let it slam in your face, give you directions rather than ignore you, tip service givers, say please and thank you, give to organized charity as well as occasionally hand a twenty to someone in the gas station with a sad story, etc - not to mention call 911 for an accident victim. OTOH, most people see their business life in a completely different light than their personal life.

  53. Re:I have a better idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Are you trolling or just stupid?
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2020725/apple-macbooks-lead-in-laptop-features-and-reliability.html
    http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/17/laptop-reliability-survey-asus-and-toshiba-win-hp-fails/

    So...shut the fuck up. I fix and sell laptops at my shop. You have no idea what you're talking about.

  54. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by CommanderK · · Score: 1

    Which is to say, the government will intervene on your behalf and enforce your claim of ownership on some piece of land or a share in the company that you have never even set a foot in. Rescind that recognition and protection, and capitalism dies overnight.

    Not necessarily. Individuals can still claim ownership of land or companies, and defend that ownership themselves with guns. Land ownership is natural in any agricultural society (if you work the land, planting seeds and maintaining it, then it makes sense that you own the land), and people defend their property themselves if government doesn't do it for them.

  55. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of worthy individuals, where "worthy" means "provides things other people want."

    Wouldn't that be meritocracy, rule of the worthy? Unlike capitalism which is rule of the rich?

  56. Re:I have a better idea by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    I have a very good idea of what I'm talking about but my experience is not recent. We used to have nothing but troubles with Toshiba and Sony laptops.

    I do agree on the HPs though, I have two friends with HP laptops and they're nothing but trouble on both the low end and the high end models.

    So, shut the fuck up yourself.

  57. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Not necessarily. Individuals can still claim ownership of land or companies, and defend that ownership themselves with guns.

    It's not exactly stable ownership if a guy with a bigger gun can come in and take it away from you at any time. For an example of what economics looks like with such an arrangement, see Somalia.

    Land ownership is natural in any agricultural society (if you work the land, planting seeds and maintaining it, then it makes sense that you own the land)

    Exactly - if you work the land. In other words, if you occupy it, or otherwise use it. But in our society, you can buy a plot of land ten states away, and it's still yours - and if someone trespasses, the state will protect your property.

    It's not even the land that's an issue here, it's means of production in general. Take some large company like Apple - if you own 51% of the company (via stock), you effectively own all the income that it makes, and can choose to pocket it all as you wish. But that is a legal fiction - you're not the company; you don't physically occupy all its offices and plants, and don't "use" it in any way. It's just a legal arrangement whereby all income earned in its name, by people working for it, is assigned to the company, and then to you. If, tomorrow, your property right to those stocks, and to the company, is no longer recognized, what's your recourse? You can still hypothetically force people to recognize it, but you need so many guns for it that you'd become the monopolist on violence - in other words, a government.

  58. Re: lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 by lolwtf.h4x · · Score: 1

    Or the robots could buy people.

  59. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by we3 · · Score: 1

    In part, maybe. But really capitalism is about who gets to decide things. In capitalism 1 dollar equals 1 vote. Therefore capitalism is not compatible with democracy.

  60. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Capitalism is an economic system, not a political system. It can affect the latter (in that undue concentration of wealth becomes political power in and of itself), but that is not what capitalism is "about".

  61. Re: lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 by syntheticmemory · · Score: 1

    Slave trade by robot, probably a legal loophole. Some people are virtual slaves to their phones now.

  62. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by mjwx · · Score: 1

    There is no way to replace capitalism or free markets without using force and the threat of violence to scare every single human being into submission and eliminate those who won't submit.
    Then, you're right back to the system of haves(the enforcers) and have-nots(everyone else) that you were trying to replace.

    Not true,

    Social systems get replaced when they no longer make sense. Which capitalism (completely separate idea to the free market) wont in a post scarcity society. In this scenario, the only way to prevent the capitalism from being replaced is to use force and violence to keep the old system in place.

    Also stop trying to confuse capitalism with the free market. Capitalism can survive and even thrive in controlled markets (see: China) and is more often than not a control on the market itself (see: Monopoly), the difference between a monopolist controlled market and a state controlled market is only who is controlling the market. Capitalism in it's purest form struggles in a truly free market, which is why most western economies operate on mixed ideologies.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  63. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by Sabriel · · Score: 1

    Key word being "degenerates". The non-degenerate alternative to parasitism is symbiosis.

  64. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

    Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of worthy individuals, where "worthy" means "provides things other people want."

    Rupert Murdoch used this idea recently to argue that capitalism was the moral system.* "Worthy" is a red herring here as it carries righteous overtones. Since it is defined in the same sentence we can rewrite as;

    Capitalism, more than any other system, makes possible the change of economic prosperity of individuals who provide things other people want."

    Now it isn't self-declaring as high-minded. From outside we can then ask, is this fair? Maybe, maybe not, but maybe it's the fairest system we have. One issue is that the concentration of wealth allows those who hold it to change what people want (monopolies, rent seeking).

    * Unfortunately he stated that the motivation of greed to provide what others want shows that it is altruistic.

  65. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by WillAdams · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I was thinking that the WPA needs to come back.

    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  66. Re:lets try to get rid of the 115 jobs as cost 2 h by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    A "post scarcity society" is a theoretical construct which homo sapiens will probably never achieve. My comment is pertinent to the real world. Yes, if we all lived in The Culture our current economic system would not exist.