China Wants To Be a Top 10 Nation For Automation By Putting More Robots In Its Factories (reuters.com)

Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 06:42 · Score: 1

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by jellomizer · 2016-07-22 07:05 · Score: 1

More to the point. Would it be economically feasible. In the US we automate because the costs of Automation is less than labor. However in China Labor is much cheaper. Going towards automation may put China in an economic disadvantage.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by bluefoxlucid · 2016-07-22 07:36 · Score: 2

Part of the cost of automation being less than labor is you create unemployment. This is fine--it's how progress works--and the displaced labor creates a gap between prior cost and new cost, which eventually leads to lower prices (prices don't keep with inflation, in part because it's impossible to hold all prices at the same buying-power equivalent in an economy where the relative price of everything constantly shifts thanks to population expansion, money supply increase, and productivity gains all interacting, and the buying-power total doesn't go up until the price of something goes down).
If you create 0.1% unemployment, no big deal. That gets washed away as the workforce turns over; give it a few months to a year and there's no evidence of that blip--save that we're all a little richer. Those people got new jobs, because we're buying more stuff thanks to that 0.1% difference, and somebody needs to make and move that stuff.
If you create 40% unemployment, that's a problem. Things got cheaper... okay? Who is buying all these cheaper things? Never mind that the money hasn't moved down into the hands of the unemployed (400 times more excluded than when they were just 0.1%); the people still working just found that nearly half their work isn't needed anymore, and you know what that means: they get laid off, too.
It's economically feasible when the cost of new technology is lower, and when the risk proposition across growth spans that technology in an uptake not significantly faster than re-employment. The economy has to respond to lower costs by offering lower prices, which businesses don't do unless they're pressured (e.g. competition, desire to get 5% on 100,000,000 units instead of 15% on 10,000,000 units, etc.). The universal competition--that consumers have limited money, and that every product bought is taken from that pool, thus all products are in competition with all other products--takes some time to launder the changes and produce a fresh, new economy.
China has labor shortages and might just be in a position where the reduced labor shifts chinese labor around such that the outcome is 2% or 5% or 8% unemployment, rather than 40% or 80% unemployment. If it cuts their production costs by 20%, that's a hell of a draw for import labor--China's financial position becomes that people will trade them something (to be determined at a later date; here's money as an IOU) for something China can produce cheaper than the buyer. In the mean time, places like America suddenly see a 20% drop in the price of all kinds of goods, and can buy more; this means we need more shipping, more retail operators, more people at VISA managing your accounts, and so forth. It means poor people spend a smaller chunk of their income on clothes and cell phones (which they probably need today), and more on food (which puts demands on local refineries, chemical producers, municipal water systems, John Deere, and farmers). It means more jobs here in America.
China would get richer and America would get richer just by China reducing the cost of manufacture, at least in a projection where China doesn't create an unemployment crisis in its own country.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by ShanghaiBill · 2016-07-22 07:43 · Score: 1

In the US we automate because the costs of Automation is less than labor. However in China Labor is much cheaper.
The cost of Chinese labor is rising rapidly. The cost of automation is falling even more rapidly.

Going towards automation may put China in an economic disadvantage.
It puts them at a cost disadvantage against America and Europe. But it helps them against Vietnam and India.
Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by __aaclcg7560 · 2016-07-22 07:45 · Score: 1

However in China Labor is much cheaper.
Not anymore. It's no longer cheaper to ship products on the ocean as it was before. All those up and coming workers are expecting better pay and benefits to support a middle income lifestyle. China need automation because labor is no longer cheaper.
Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by Dorianny · 2016-07-22 08:22 · Score: 1

More to the point. Would it be economically feasible. In the US we automate because the costs of Automation is less than labor. However in China Labor is much cheaper. Going towards automation may put China in an economic disadvantage.
Due to its "One Child Policy" China has a rapidly aging and soon to be declining population. To compound the problem it also has a poor Health Care System and Horrible Environmental Pollution problems that leave much of its aging work-force with chronic and untreated health conditions and diminished productivity. In addition most of its untapped human-resources are rural Subsistence Farmers with no Experience and minimal Education. China's attempt to move from an export based Industrial Economy into a Market Economy only adds to the difficulties. Finally, considering the low levels of current automation in China and adding the aforementioned factors to the formula, China looks like like a bigger target for automation then most Developed Economies
Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by johannesg · 2016-07-22 09:18 · Score: 1

Due to its "One Child Policy" China has a rapidly aging and soon to be declining population.
Well, that's easily solved: just do as Europe did and import millions of unlettered muslims. We're already enjoying great benefits here in Europe in such diverse areas as population reduction (with deadly attacks on a weekly basis), elimination of our freedoms, and of course cultural genocide!
Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-07-22 10:02 · Score: 1

Well, that's easily solved: just do as Europe did and import millions of unlettered muslims. We're already enjoying great benefits here in Europe in such diverse areas as population reduction (with deadly attacks on a weekly basis), elimination of our freedoms, and of course cultural genocide!
Since Europe doesn't have the manpower or financial resources to maintain the kind of "watch" they really need to keep a lid on their recent immigrant population, they will resort to using more and more "digital invasiveness", which is a cheaper and easier way of dealing with it.

In other words, Europe, like the US and other First World countries will become more and more police-state like to deal with the imagined and real threat from those populations, of which a very, very small number are actually any threat at all.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 10:08 · Score: 1

Due to its "One Child Policy" China has a rapidly aging and soon to be declining population.
Which is likely why it was changed to the "Two Child Policy" in January.
Re:Kicking millions of Chinese out of jobs... by Gavagai80 · 2016-07-22 19:34 · Score: 1

It's possible, if the unemployment is high enough, that automation might force China to flirt with the concept of communism.

--
This space intentionally left blank

Jobs... by tekrat · 2016-07-22 06:48 · Score: 2

And yet Trump keeps telling his rubes that jobs are coming back. They are not coming back. Workers will be replaced by robots. How he's going to force companies to manufacture in the USA without adding legislation (because he said he would reduce legislation against corporations) is beyond me...

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:Jobs... by Darinbob · 2016-07-22 07:03 · Score: 1

You're supposed to cheer and chant, not listen and think.
Re:Jobs... by JustNiz · 2016-07-22 07:06 · Score: 2

> How he's going to force companies to manufacture in the USA without adding legislation (because he said he would reduce legislation against corporations) is beyond me...
Import tariffs and tax breaks.
Re:Jobs... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 07:51 · Score: 1

Typical. Those who shame others for generalizations and stereotypes often commit those same actions in the same sentence..
Re:Jobs... by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-07-22 08:16 · Score: 2

So maybe in Trump's bloviating buffoon mind he thinks he can raise the import duty / tariffs sky high as protectionism to force jobs to come back.
The US has import tariffs on around 12,000 items already, many of which are there to keep companies in the US in business. Paperclips have a 127% import tax. Which is why nearly all of them sold in the US are made in the US. Peanuts are taxed between 130% and 160% Tobacco has a 350% import tax. Those are products that tariffs have successfully kept producers in the US in business.
The president, in 2011, tried to keep tire manufacturing in the US by raising the tariff on Chinese made tires to 35%. But all it managed to do was to move manufacturing to countries other than China.
Of course for worst case we can go back to the tariff wars caused by the Fordney-McCumber Tariff. Once European countries also raised their import tariffs from the US we got the great depression.
There's certainly something to be said for using tariffs to keep companies in business. Japan has used tariffs and insane regulations to protect their own automotive industry. Obviously if import taxes are pressed too hard it can have a huge backlash too.
As for Trump, like most politicians and businessmen, I'm sure his private persona is much different from his public one. Not that I can see myself voting for him or Hillary.
Re:Jobs... by tnk1 · 2016-07-22 08:22 · Score: 2

Yes, although there are a few things that are the responsibility of the legislature that can, if the stars align, be usurped by the executive. The Presidency has been becoming more and more powerful over the years. There are tricks that can be used to apply a veneer of legality to what is not strictly legal, although you need popular support for that sort of thing to work.
Of course, Trump is trying to generate an air of urgency around his campaign. We're in decline, we're under seige. New ideas are needed, etc. Blah blah blah. That same urgency can be used to enact constitutionally "innovative" ideas. There have been a number of well intentioned power grabs like the New Deal and Great Society and some much less well intentioned ones in between.
Re:Jobs... by lgw · 2016-07-22 08:30 · Score: 2

And yet Trump keeps telling his rubes that jobs are coming back. They are not coming back. Workers will be replaced by robots.

There are barely more manufacturing jobs in the US than there are farming jobs. Those aren't the jobs people care about - we're a service economy now. Automation threatens to displace service workers the way it already has manufacturing workers - but that's far enough out that neither Trump nor his supporters are complaining about it.
OTOH, service jobs (especially low-skilled) are being lost to lost to recent immigrants, and that's an immediate problem that a president can do something about. That's really the core of Trump's appeal, in fact. The very wealthy of course only want unlimited immigration, because lower wages helps that crowd. OTOH, unlimited immigration is not at all popular with people struggling to keep their low-skilled job as it is.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Jobs... by Tablizer · 2016-07-22 08:49 · Score: 1

He will "create" jobs by causing war and chaos.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Jobs... by RichPowers · 2016-07-22 08:59 · Score: 1

This is what Madison meant when he referred to "parchment barriers." The people of the United States are humiliating themselves and their ancestors by prostrating before the Christ-like executive who will deliver them jobs, hope, free college degrees, and ponies, too! A republic and its constitution are only as strong as the citizens who uphold it.
In a way, it's appropriate that the republic's come to this, as the very monolithic institutions that the "Progressives" and liberals built throughout the 20th century could very well be turned on them if Trump is elected president. Hence Hayek's quote: "We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes."
Congress, though, shares much of the blame for executive overreach. Congress' cowardly (though politically expedient) abdication of its constitutional responsibilities has led to a permanent state of war and emboldened executive.
Though Senator Clinton was not alone in her sentiment, her vote to "authorize" the president to go to war with Iraq, a sovereign nation that did not attack the United States or provide an immediate, existential threat to the republic, is an instructive example of how these people think. From her floor speech:
"...it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort."
The Constitution clearly states that Congress is to declare war. There's nothing about giving the president that choice. Instead, Congress punts like political hacks, and refuses to issue a proper declaration of war with their names attached to it.
And in case you think I'm focusing too much on a vote from last decade, remember that the men who founded this republic effectively told the King of Great Britain to fuck himself, signed their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the document declaring as much, and then mailed a copy to his office. And the charlatans in Congress can't even follow the constitution when it matters most? And we're considering electing one of them as president?
If nothing else, the disaster that is Trump vs. Clinton might spur a conversation about truly downsizing the federal government and returning more power to the states -- where it belongs and where it was intended to belong.
Re:Jobs... by Hognoxious · 2016-07-22 09:49 · Score: 1

When he does it it's not legislation. It's taking the necessary actions to make America great again.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Jobs... by perpenso · 2016-07-22 12:04 · Score: 1

And yet Trump keeps telling his rubes that jobs are coming back. They are not coming back. Workers will be replaced by robots.
Germany shows that it is not that bad, they have been heavily into automation for a while. Some different jobs are created, a lot of welders lost but a few electrical technicians added sort of thing. Economically speaking, robots or not the money is still being spent in the country and benefitting the country in various indirect ways. As opposed to outsourcing where all the indirect benefits go overseas.

How he's going to force companies to manufacture in the USA without adding legislation (because he said he would reduce legislation against corporations) is beyond me...
I think he said he would introduce some sort of tariff scheme when a trading partner's markets are not "open". It sort of sound like a reciprocal system, low barriers in both direction or high barriers in both directions, but no more low in one direction and high in the other. I'm not going to debate the wisdom of any tariff scheme but its clearly something quite independent of lower corporate taxes and lower regulations on corporations. If you are going to bash him at least get the criticisms correct.
Re:Jobs... by TheSync · 2016-07-22 14:00 · Score: 1

Germany shows that it is not that bad, they have been heavily into automation for a while
Yes but Germany is part of the harmonised trade system of the EU, and it is just as open to Chinese imports as the United States.
Germany percent of workers involved in manufacturing has been going down of course.
Re:Jobs... by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2016-07-22 18:42 · Score: 1

I think you are right. But, as a devil's advocate, trade policy is not legislation. So maybe in Trump's bloviating buffoon mind he thinks he can raise the import duty / tariffs sky high as protectionism to force jobs to come back. Only an idiot would think that - but then the misogynist xenophobe racist divisive psychopathic serial liar Trump is sort of an idiot.
Typical. Those who shame others for generalizations and stereotypes often commit those same actions in the same sentence..
...but not today!

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Jobs... by perpenso · 2016-07-24 09:00 · Score: 1

None of that changes the fact that Germany has heavily invested in robotics and not suffered. Manufacturing jobs don't need to be low level work. Technical jobs supporting the robotics industry don't necessarily get counted as manufacturing.
Re:Jobs... by fustakrakich · 2016-07-24 09:04 · Score: 1

I think it was tax breaks and other subsidies that pushed them overseas to begin with. But I sure have nothing against import tariffs on American companies that exploit cheap overseas labor either, and make it high enough to support adequate unemployment and other benefits here. We can also put a domestic "tariff" on automation here for the same purpose, unless prices go down instead. We are all entitled to the benefits of automation, one way or another.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

aha by superwiz · 2016-07-22 06:50 · Score: 2

And I want that '95 Chevy that you are buying from me to run like the best Ferrari you can imagine. Automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. And China isn't running out of people any time soon.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Re:aha by AmiMoJo · 2016-07-22 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

China has a plan. They know that automation is both inevitable and also desirable (consistent quality, low cost, high end) and rather than just let their citizens be screwed by it they plan on transitioning them to service jobs.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:aha by epyT-R · 2016-07-22 07:58 · Score: 1

Yes.. they also use those edicts to violate human rights on a regular basis.
Re:aha by superwiz · 2016-07-22 09:59 · Score: 1

Do you mean that the People's Republic of China does not ensure comfortable working conditions for the working class? Inconceivable.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:aha by thegarbz · 2016-07-22 11:10 · Score: 1

Automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people
How do you know? Cheapness comes in many forms, labour costs is one of them, but number of units produced per sqm of factory floor is another, cost of rework is another too.
If human labour is so cheap then why did Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs? Not cut back, not reduced because they missed profit targets, but automated away because it's cheaper and produces a more consistent product.
Re:aha by drinkypoo · 2016-07-22 13:03 · Score: 1

China has a plan. They know that automation is both inevitable and also desirable (consistent quality, low cost, high end) and rather than just let their citizens be screwed by it they plan on transitioning them to service jobs.
If you insist that everyone have jobs, at some point someone has to get paid for making something. You can't have a service job if nobody has money to buy your services.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:aha by superwiz · 2016-07-22 14:04 · Score: 1

If human labour is so cheap then why did Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs?

A classic example of how to make an argument seem like it addresses a point, while in fact it just makes an entirely different point, is to counter an argument which draws a comparison between 2 values with an argument which talks about one absolute value; or the other way around -- to counter a point about an absolute value with an argument about a comparative value.
I said automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people. You countered that "Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs". It may mean that in this particular instance of Foxconn people were more expensive than the cost of automation. That does not extrapolate to conclusion that it would work out that way with all or even many industries in China. Human labor there is still very cheap. In most industries it's still cheaper than the cost of machines. A few examples where that's not the case do not prove the opposite point.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:aha by thegarbz · 2016-07-22 22:08 · Score: 1

Actually it's more of an example of how you thought I addressed the WRONG point where as in fact I was addressing your entire post.
Automation to reduce rework costs, reduce floor space expanding production, etc addressed the first part which was aimed at the whole "automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people". This assertion is a load of crap and we automate a lot of things for very expensive reasons.
And the second part "Foxconn recently say they've automated away 60000 jobs" was aimed at your closing fragment: "And China isn't running out of people any time soon".
Reading your entire post in its entirety you seem to imply that automation is a waste of time if you have lots of labour, China has lots of labour, and this is all a pipe dream. My post on the other hand shows the very scenarios you're talking about are driving towards automation.
Re:aha by superwiz · 2016-07-23 06:28 · Score: 1

Even within a society which has a very cheap price of labor there can exist people whose labor is very costly. Your example was inappropriate because it was an example of automating away jobs of just such people within China. China is not automating away the jobs of the people with lowest wages. It only makes sense to automate away the wages of those whose skills are in high demand, but who have little political sway or control over the process (highly-skill non-manager positions). So your example in no way whatsoever disproved the point that "automation is what you do when machines are cheaper than people".

This assertion is a load of crap
Fuck you with a cherry on top. I am just not in a mood for dumb asses who think they know something, but who in reality are cherry picking facts to prove points which are utterly wrong. You are the prime example of why "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If you knew less, then at least you wouldn't have the confidence to assert the dumb ass shit you are asserting. But because you know a few things, but can't piece them together, you think you are coming from a position of reason. You are not. You are coming from a knee-jerk towards your favorite pipe dream based on cherry picked facts.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Warning signs of Sentience by Dareth · 2016-07-22 06:52 · Score: 1

Watch out If any of the robots build themselves legs so they can climb to the top of the factory and jump off. They may have become sentient.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

They still have almost 500 million farmers by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 06:55 · Score: 1

Who is going to buy all this stuff if they don't have jobs?

Re:They still have almost 500 million farmers by Darinbob · 2016-07-22 07:16 · Score: 1

They're in the equivalent of the industrial revolution, using lots and lots of unskilled labor migrating off of farms into cities to do menial and dangerous jobs. The robots will replace some of them but not all of them. We're also in an era very different from the industrial revolution where lots of manufacturing can not be done by humans as the parts are too small to work with and the tolerances too demanding.

of all countries... by JustNiz · 2016-07-22 07:04 · Score: 1

China has an endless supply of people that will work for next to nothing. You'd think they would be the last ones to be looking into robots.

Re:of all countries... by Khashishi · 2016-07-22 09:34 · Score: 1

As China becomes more wealthy, the workers request higher pay.
Re:of all countries... by TheSync · 2016-07-22 13:55 · Score: 1

China has an endless supply of people that will work for next to nothing. You'd think they would be the last ones to be looking into robots.
Labor force doesn't increase productivity, capital does.
Take 10,000 workers and they still could not make a single microprocessor without the capital equipment to grow silicon crystals, photolithography, wafer handling in clean rooms, etc.

why china? by Dale512 · 2016-07-22 07:11 · Score: 1

If you are going to automate an entire factory then why would it matter where that factory is? If we are going to go down the fully automated track then the factories might as well get built locally.

Forward Thinking with a hint of Xenophobia by GabeGhearing · 2016-07-22 07:18 · Score: 1

I think this is a mixture of forward thinking and xenophobia. China is a major importer of industrial robots, and Japan is a major exporter of industrial robots. http://www.worldstopexports.co...

For most basic manufacturing jobs cheap labor can't compete with good automation.

why use china robo factory when you can do the sam by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-22 07:19 · Score: 2

why use china robo factory when you can do the same in the USA with quicker and cheaper shipping + less risk of the 3rd shift making cheap knock offs.

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by bluefoxlucid · 2016-07-22 07:39 · Score: 1

That's barely a statistical error in China.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Now what? by sumsguy · 2016-07-22 07:44 · Score: 1

So, what do we need them for then? We already make our own robots. I guess we've reached peak population finally. I also read that most millennials do not want children (no source, sorry). With good reason, I'd say.

Re:In other news... by dasgoober · 2016-07-22 07:45 · Score: 1

They'll stay home and do IT/programming for US companies. Since it's not a "good", it won't be affected by tariffs
And no immigration issues..

Re:Anything to be #1 I guess... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 07:47 · Score: 1

it aims to boost penetration to 150 per 10,000 workers

Um, what kind of robots are these?

Penetration robots, obviously.

Re:..more? by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-22 08:05 · Score: 1

Club fed has that.

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by ShanghaiBill · 2016-07-22 08:13 · Score: 1

That's barely a statistical error in China.

If the female deficit was even spread through all ages, then it would be about 2%, which would be no big deal. But it is concentrated among the young, where it exceeds 10% in many areas. That is socially destabilizing. Many Chinese social media comments made about the recent atoll dispute with the Philippines are shockingly jingoistic, calling for war to seize land and defend China's "honor". I doubt if those comments are coming from guys with families or even GFs.

Jobs vs. purchasing power by Alwin+Henseler · 2016-07-22 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Who is going to buy all this stuff if they don't have jobs?

And there lies the heart of the problem: purchasing power is coupled to having a job.

As technology marches forward, that coupling has to be let go. Or at least loosened. The majority of the population needs to have some purchasing power even if there's no job for them. Think basic income.

The alternative: (almost) everything automated, production equipment (including robots) in the hands of a few corporations & the billionaires at their top, with the rest of the population jobless / out of money (and in the extreme case: out of housing or food). Great recipe for say, a nice little civil war. As it has been several times in history.

The automation itself isn't a bad thing, it increases productivity so we can have more nice things or do fun stuff more of the time. But the fruits of that increased productivity should be divided somewhat evenly over people. If it ends up in the hands of a few you have a recipe for disaster.

Re:Jobs vs. purchasing power by lgw · 2016-07-22 08:35 · Score: 1

There will always be jobs, at least until the Singularity. This is just the Nth automation transition since the Industrial Revolution begun. It's no more (or less!) scary than any of them.
The disaster you're predicting was predicted over and over throughout history, and it's just as wrong this time.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Jobs vs. purchasing power by Tablizer · 2016-07-22 09:14 · Score: 1

This is just the Nth automation transition since the Industrial Revolution begun. It's no more (or less!) scary than any of them. The disaster you're predicting was predicted over and over throughout history, and it's just as wrong this time.
Past trends/patterns are not necessarily future trends/patterns.
One thing that is different is that automation in the past mostly enabled people to do more, NOT replace them. Power tools and tractors still had a human operator. Second, "office work" (AKA "service economy") started taking up the slack caused by factory automation and offshoring.
But now office work is undergoing a similar transition, and nobody can find the New Thing that will replace all the displaced office workers. Can YOU see it? The "New Thing" wasn't so hidden in the past.
The only possibility I see right now is the "customization economy" where people get customized cars, landscaping, kitchens, etc.
However, not enough people have high enough wages to afford customization. I see "Helicopter Money" (HM) theory as one possible solution.
We also have rotting infrastructure that needs repair, but no means to fund it.
It may take a combination of HM, taxing the rich, socialism, and public works to crack this puzzle.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Jobs vs. purchasing power by lgw · 2016-07-22 10:22 · Score: 1

Past trends/patterns are not necessarily future trends/patterns.
No, but they're the best, sometimes only, evidence we have.

One thing that is different is that automation in the past mostly enabled people to do more, NOT replace them.
Nope. A great many professions have disappeared, or nearly so, over the centuries.

Can YOU see it? The "New Thing" wasn't so hidden in the past.
Everything's obvious in hindsight, but no one saw (or very few) what was coming, jobwise, until we were well into ramping up those new jobs.

The only possibility I see right now is the "customization economy" where people get customized cars, landscaping, kitchens, etc.
Customization will take off in areas where the base good both becomes nearly free due to automation, and where it works as a social status signal. Moving from "owning X confers status" to "your customization of X confers status, since everyone can own one now" is the one obvious trend. Heck, that's already most of fashion.

I see "Helicopter Money" (HM) theory as one possible solution.
"And we all had plenty of money, but there was nothing that money could buy". More money without producing more goods and services doesn't really achieve anything.

We also have rotting infrastructure that needs repair, but no means to fund it.
We certainly have the means to improve it, we just lack the will. The vast majority of state and local taxes these days goes to pension plan funding. Those money helicopters seems to hover over people the government likes - funny how that works.

It may take a combination of HM, taxing the rich, socialism, and public works to crack this puzzle.
That puzzle was cracked by capitalism every previous time, but this time is different because ... well, apparently, because you want free money.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Jobs vs. purchasing power by Tablizer · 2016-07-22 11:30 · Score: 1

Everything's obvious in hindsight, but no one saw (or very few) what was coming, jobwise, until we were well into ramping up those new jobs.
Do you have any evidence of this? When cars replaced horses, automobiles presented manufacture, repair, and refueling jobs almost immediately. It's true horse experts probably fell on bad times, but in general, new car-related jobs were already appearing and booming.
When factories started disappearing overseas in the late 1970's, the term "service economy" was coined for the office and food-service work that was ALREADY growing at the time.
As far as Helicopter Money, it's not so much about the money as it is circulatory pressure. I liken it to a hydraulic system. If there is not enough water pressure, then it's sluggish. You need enough pressure in the system for it to function optimally. The best economies are when inflation is around about 2.2 to 2.5% a year. We've been hovering around 1.8 for too long: not enough water pressure in the system.
Capacity has increased via automation and more 3rd-world countries "donating" cheap labor, but there's not enough consumption to use this potential capacity because wages and jobs are sluggish. HM can close the gap by increasing the hydraulic pressure.

The vast majority of state and local taxes these days goes to pension plan funding.

Hogwash. Pensions were long common until the private sector made them unfashionable. The gov't typically pays about 15% less than the private sector, making up for it via pensions and benefits. If gov't slashes pensions, then they'll have to pay higher salaries if they want decent employees.
Deregulation and smaller gov't hasn't worked so well in Texas and Kansas. Their job picture may be slightly above average, but social services and infrastructure are notorious: they are essentially competing with the 3rd world by becoming the 3rd world.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Jobs vs. purchasing power by lgw · 2016-07-22 12:07 · Score: 1

Do you have any evidence of this? When cars replaced horses, automobiles presented manufacture, repair, and refueling jobs almost immediately.
Car-related jobs did very little to replace horse-related jobs at first (number-wise). It was only after cars had been around for quite some time that Ford made them cheap enough that more people could own cars than previously owned horses that job replacement started to become meaningful.
Manufacturing brought product after product into the purchasing ability of common man that he either could never have afforded, or only afforded for the head of the household.
That's been the trend. The new jobs are in stuff that previously only the wealthy could afford, but now suddenly most people can afford due to automation. People who can predict those products going forward stand to make a great deal of money.

far as Helicopter Money, it's not so much about the money as it is circulatory pressure.

We know that's not true from decades of deflationary pressure in Japan. The truth is: you can't push on a rope. Economies can stagnate, even collapse, for lack of money supply, but it doesn't work the other way: you can't create demand for money by increasing the supply.

Pensions were long common until the private sector made them unfashionable. The gov't typically pays about 15% less than the private sector, making up for it via pensions and benefits
I used to live in Alameda County - their pension obligations were 100% of their budget, and they were far from the worst in California. It's a common story - most states have similar problems at the state level, and most major cities and counties face it to one degree or another. Pensions were under-funded for decades from a combination of assumptions of 90s stock market growth continuing forever, lifespan not increasing, and politicians not giving a shit about any problem they could kick down the road.
BTW, jobs at the federal level now typically pay more than the private sector. Aristocrats vs commoners.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Jobs vs. purchasing power by Tablizer · 2016-07-22 13:18 · Score: 1

Manufacturing brought product after product into the purchasing ability of common man that he either could never have afforded
Perhaps so, but that's a different issue. I'm talking about jobs and the general economy.

We know that's not true from decades of deflationary pressure in Japan.

Japan has not directly tried HM.

you can't create demand for money by increasing the supply.
Demand for money? Who's talking about demand for money?

politicians not giving a shit about any problem they could kick down the road.
The problem is voters then, not the gov't. GIGO. But that doesn't change my point that if you reduce pensions you'll have to increase salaries, trading one expenditure for another. (Local gov't pensions should be federally regulated in my opinion to ensure they are properly funded. It becomes a national problem if lots of local govt's make the same mistake.)

jobs at the federal level now typically pay more than the private sector
I call false on that. There may have been more parity of late because private sector wages have stagnated since the early 2000's.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Jobs vs. purchasing power by khallow · 2016-07-22 16:45 · Score: 1

And there lies the heart of the problem: purchasing power is coupled to having a job.

As technology marches forward, that coupling has to be let go. Or at least loosened. The majority of the population needs to have some purchasing power even if there's no job for them. Think basic income.

Or we could create more jobs. I'd take concerns like yours seriously, if we weren't strangling employment in the developed world, and if the rest of the world, including China, showed similar problems. Instead, what we see is massive increase in productive employment throughout the rest of the world and a really hostile environment to employment in the developed world. Maybe we should go with what works?

The alternative: (almost) everything automated, production equipment (including robots) in the hands of a few corporations & the billionaires at their top, with the rest of the population jobless / out of money (and in the extreme case: out of housing or food). Great recipe for say, a nice little civil war. As it has been several times in history.

And once again, we have the threats. Your approach isn't working. The laws protecting developed world labor are still pretty strong. But we don't need a zillion unemployed or underemployed developed world workers with really strong labor protections. Instead, we need a strong, competitive employer environment. But that requires nurturing employers which a lot of people seem pathological inclined to smother.

Universal basic income? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-07-22 08:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

The challenge with automation is what to do with the displaced workers. In Western societies, expectations for quality of life and income levels are already established as fairly high, which complicates discussions of replacing employment with a universal basic income. If you are faced with the transition from employment with a decent standard of living, to a UBI covering only the bare necessities of life, that doesn't look so attractive. While urban China is seeing the same trend, rural China not so much, and that's where many of the migrant workers that support the manufacturing industry are coming from. If your options are a life of back-breaking drudgery in the fields just to stay alive, or that same UBI, the choice suddenly looks a lot more attractive. The numbers are huge, but that is a scaling problem - if the numbers add up for one robot factory and 1,000 people, they will still add up for a million factories and a billion people.

It would be ironic if "communist" (in almost no sense of the word) China managed to pull off a UBI, but would also offer huge propaganda benefits for the Chinese Communist Party, and Chinese nationalism in general (a potent and growing force). For that reason alone I would not be surprised if the government is thinking along those lines.

Of course, then there's the question of what all those people do with their free time. Go ladders? Rioting in the streets to bring down corrupt local officials? Setting forth in rowboats to defend the nine-dash line?

Interesting times...

Re:Universal basic income? by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-07-22 09:54 · Score: 1

It would be ironic if "communist" (in almost no sense of the word) China managed to pull off a UBI, but would also offer huge propaganda benefits for the Chinese Communist Party, and Chinese nationalism in general (a potent and growing force). For that reason alone I would not be surprised if the government is thinking along those lines.
You just made the best point in this whole discussion, and you are right on the money.

The CCP is thinking exactly that: when less and less of their population actually works(and we all know its only a matter of time) they will be ahead of the curve in implementing what we "here in the West" call UBI.
In a "communist" country like China, it will be called something quite different, and they will probably have it fine tuned and working great by the time they really need to implement it.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

Re:Make America Great by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-22 08:30 · Score: 1

$30k/lifetime + maintenance + breakdown downtime + parts + reconfigure time / costs for changes in work.

Re: sure glad they don't have nukes by Type44Q · 2016-07-22 08:31 · Score: 1

I doubt if those comments are coming from guys with families or even GFs.

Not where they're coming from but rather who they're aimed at.

Universal health care and low cost education by Joe_Dragon · 2016-07-22 08:33 · Score: 2

Universal health care and low cost education are needed in the USA.

and we need to get rid of the 2/4/6 year piece of paper education that we have here.

Re:Universal health care and low cost education by superwiz · 2016-07-22 09:51 · Score: 1

Universal health care and low cost education are needed in the USA.
Low cost health care and universal education are needed in the USA. There. Fixed it for you. What's the point of cheap college education for people who fail to learn much during free public school education? And what's the point of universal coverage if there aren't enough doctors to provide the care?

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.

Seems to suit their mindset by kheldan · 2016-07-22 08:36 · Score: 1

To all appearances, Chinese businessmen (as well as their government, of course) treat their own people like automatons to start with, not like human beings, so of course it seems like a no-brainer to dispense with as many troublesome, cost-ineffective, high-maintenance hoo-mans as possible. After all, it's completely unfair that these 'hoo-mans' demand pay, rest, bathroom breaks, etc! What do you mean, they aren't capable of working 24/7/365? Obviously they must be lazy and entitled and should be eliminated by nice, clean, quiet machines.

What the fuck, China? You have over a BILLION people, and you want to put as many of them out of work as possible? What the fuck do you plan to do, grind up half of them to feed the rest with?

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:Seems to suit their mindset by Khashishi · 2016-07-22 09:31 · Score: 1

Greed is not a trait uniquely possessed by Chinese business people, you racist.
Re:Seems to suit their mindset by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-07-22 09:48 · Score: 1

How is his comment racist?
He mentioned Chinese businessmen and government exploiting Chinese workers.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:Seems to suit their mindset by kheldan · 2016-07-22 09:49 · Score: 2

racist
Fuck you. This has nothing to do with race, it has EVERYTHING to do with China's human rights record and news stories EVERYONE (except you apparently) have been reading for YEARS about how workers are treated in China. So how about you shut the fuck up, asshole?

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by Tablizer · 2016-07-22 08:56 · Score: 1

Because 600,000,000 sexually frustrated [Chinese men] that can't find wives because they can't find jobs is going to lead to a stable society.

Already solved: the pollution will change their hormones and turn them gay.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by Hognoxious · 2016-07-22 09:50 · Score: 1

s/go somewhere/shove it in something/

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:why use china robo factory when you can do the by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-07-22 09:50 · Score: 2

Because if we manufactured here in the US then we can't burn billions of tons of high carbon heavy grade crude sludge to power those container ships that fill the pacific with a slowly swirling morass of plastic for sea birds to choke on, etc;

Carry on...

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by Sir_Eptishous · 2016-07-22 10:10 · Score: 1

Don't worry, they are already planning on pumping hormones into the water supply to "tone things down" in their highly male dominated population.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

Re:why use china robo factory when you can do the by thegarbz · 2016-07-22 11:12 · Score: 1

why use china robo factory when you can do the same in the USA with quicker and cheaper shipping + less risk of the 3rd shift making cheap knock offs.

Because in the USA you can't simply dump your waste in the stream behind the factory, power costs half a much, and there's far less regulation required to build such a factory.

Re:Long view by khallow · 2016-07-22 11:12 · Score: 1

It might not make sense at the present but you have to look at decades from now were most of the Western nations would have automated and will produce cheap crap themselves instead of importing them from China.

But it still doesn't make sense at present. And my bet is that in the future, those Western nations will develop that newer automation and then build and deploy it in China because that's where the world's industrial base will be.

Automation won't keep manufacturing in China by perpenso · 2016-07-22 11:47 · Score: 1

It might not make sense at the present but you have to look at decades from now were most of the Western nations would have automated and will produce cheap crap themselves instead of importing them from China.

Automation won't keep manufacturing in China, maintaining parity with the west won't do it. Outsourcing is a royal PITA and there are many problems. There has to be a huge saving to offset the overhead and inefficiencies of outsourcing to make it economical. A wage gap was once part of the "savings" but that is shrinking and robots won't offer much savings either.

The other "savings" is basically that everything sold in China is at a 25-30% discount due to the "engineering" of the exchange rate. This may maintain outsourcing, not robots.

Re:Automation won't keep manufacturing in China by Gavagai80 · 2016-07-22 19:31 · Score: 1

These days, China has substantial value as a consumer. It makes sense to keep some (but not all) of your manufacturing where you have a billion consumers.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Automation won't keep manufacturing in China by perpenso · 2016-07-24 09:10 · Score: 1

These days, China has substantial value as a consumer. It makes sense to keep some (but not all) of your manufacturing where you have a billion consumers.
Seriously, that has been proven false decade after decade after decade for over a century now. Perhaps two centuries. Look at jet engines. Western manufacturers were enticed to "share" technology and manufacturing techniques to get a part of the Chinese market. And now:

"China's cabinet may soon approve an aircraft engine development program that will require investment of at least 100 billion yuan ($16 billion), state-run Xinhua news agency quoted unidentified industry sources as saying. China is determined to reduce its dependency on foreign companies like Boeing Co (BA.N), EADS-owned Airbus EAD.PA, General Electric Co (GE.N) and Rolls Royce Plc (RR.L) for the country's soaring demand for planes and engines."
http://www.reuters.com/article...

Industrial base is mobile by perpenso · 2016-07-22 11:51 · Score: 1

It might not make sense at the present but you have to look at decades from now were most of the Western nations would have automated and will produce cheap crap themselves instead of importing them from China.

But it still doesn't make sense at present. And my bet is that in the future, those Western nations will develop that newer automation and then build and deploy it in China because that's where the world's industrial base will be.

Recent history has shown us that an industrial base is quite mobile. Provide manufacturers an incentive to move that is also approved/tolerated by consumers and the base will move. What may keep manufacturing in China is the "engineered" exchange rate that make everything available at a 25-30% discount.

More of a protect an entire industrial base thing by perpenso · 2016-07-22 12:09 · Score: 1

I'm quite skeptical of tariffs due to their history but some sort of reciprocal system seems to be needed. On a per nation basis low barriers to trade in both directions, high barriers to trade in both directions, but not low barriers in one direction and high barriers in the other. That is what really needs to be addressed, so its a little different than the historical protect a specific product/industry tariff. Its more of a protect an entire industrial base sort of thing.

Re:Long view by pete6677 · 2016-07-22 12:57 · Score: 1

The world's industrial base will indeed be in China due to the complete lack of (enforced) environmental regulations. The First World can't compete with that.

Re:More of a protect an entire industrial base thi by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-07-22 14:10 · Score: 1

Agreed. But it's become pretty complicated. I don't think China has protectionist tariffs in place. What they have is artificially depressed currency. So effectively it's a high tariff on any imported goods. Plus the government also controls the value of certain items to try to gain a monopoly in that market. Look at rare earth minerals and solar panels. They driven the prices so low that it's not economical to mine most rare earths outside of China currently. Solar panels from China have put a lot of companies out of business.

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-07-22 14:24 · Score: 1

refactoring period

I'm not sure if this is a typo or simply a statement specifically about developers' sexual habits?

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-07-22 14:25 · Score: 1

I wonder if this wasn't a clever ploy on part of the government as to how to muster a bigger army.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:SOME MEN. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-07-22 14:27 · Score: 1

Oooo, such humblebrag. ;)

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re: sure glad they don't have nukes by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2016-07-22 14:28 · Score: 1

But only 150 robots per 10000 workers? Still sounds like a remote threat at this point.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by Gavagai80 · 2016-07-22 19:23 · Score: 1

Many Chinese social media comments made about the recent atoll dispute with the Philippines are shockingly jingoistic, calling for war to seize land and defend China's "honor".

I'd be shocked if their internet commenters weren't saying that. You don't have to read far on American news sites to find commenters who want to nuke the middle east or the like.

--
This space intentionally left blank

Trump's opposition to globalism is wise. by sethstorm · 2016-07-22 22:38 · Score: 1

What says that globalism, as practiced & supported by his opposition, is inevitable? The fear of Trump shows that jobs can come back with his kind of citizen-first policies.

Those people who you call "rubes" are wiser for rejecting your clerisy - as the country has been worse for blindly accepting globalism. Citizens have rejected the false promises, especially those centering around trade, as they have only seen harm.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Your UCLA revisionism precedes you. by sethstorm · 2016-07-22 22:40 · Score: 1

How about not blindly following the UCLA revisionism of the Great Depression?

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by Noble713 · 2016-07-23 01:27 · Score: 1

But 24 million men, given rifles, uniforms and marching orders, will sure as shit make China's neighbors sit up and pay attention. Combine it with mechanization courtesy of their automated factories, and it's not even a "human wave" anymore. And as you hinted, it's a small enough portion of China's population they could lose all those men as casualties and barely notice, if they kept a lid on the media (which they do pretty well).

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by Noble713 · 2016-07-23 01:29 · Score: 1

Seriously? Men have like a 2 hour refactoring period

Citation needed. Is that really a "normal" timeframe? I only have my own frame of reference of ~20-30 minutes, sometimes less if I'm REALLY attracted to the woman.

Re:why use china robo factory when you can do the by crimson+tsunami · 2016-07-23 02:56 · Score: 1

You spend more gas driving to the store to pick it up than it takes to send it 1/2 way round the world on a ship.

Re:More of a protect an entire industrial base thi by khallow · 2016-07-23 06:15 · Score: 1

Such a reciprocal system needs to take into account that one party is a lot poorer than the other. The current system of mostly free trade helps those poorer countries become a lot less poor. I think you need to do better than that.

Re:More of a protect an entire industrial base thi by perpenso · 2016-07-24 09:03 · Score: 1

Such a reciprocal system needs to take into account that one party is a lot poorer than the other. The current system of mostly free trade helps those poorer countries become a lot less poor. I think you need to do better than that.

Who says that can not be a consideration? Don't naively think reciprocal means "dollars", note that my post mentions "barriers" not "balance of trade" (i.e. dollars).

Re:More of a protect an entire industrial base thi by khallow · 2016-07-24 13:19 · Score: 1

Don't naively think reciprocal means "dollars", note that my post mentions "barriers" not "balance of trade" (i.e. dollars).

I was naively thinking this was a selfish and futile attempt to protect developed world labor from reality. You know, I still think that is the case. The developed world doesn't need additional barriers, it needs economically healthier societies that among other things treat their employers better.

Re:sure glad they don't have nukes by bluefoxlucid · 2016-07-25 01:36 · Score: 1

That sounds a lot like the Holy Roman Empire...

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Re:More of a protect an entire industrial base thi by perpenso · 2016-07-30 07:36 · Score: 1

Don't naively think reciprocal means "dollars", note that my post mentions "barriers" not "balance of trade" (i.e. dollars).

I was naively thinking this was a selfish and futile attempt to protect developed world labor from reality. You know, I still think that is the case. The developed world doesn't need additional barriers, it needs economically healthier societies that among other things treat their employers better.

Again, you display a reading comprehension problem, arguing against a policy not being suggested. Again, from my original post: "some sort of reciprocal system seems to be needed. On a per nation basis low barriers to trade in both directions, high barriers to trade in both directions, but not low barriers in one direction and high barriers in the other."

Clues: (1) per nation basis (2) same level of barriers in both directions, i.e. "reciprocal".

Slashdot Mirror

China Wants To Be a Top 10 Nation For Automation By Putting More Robots In Its Factories (reuters.com)

95 of 141 comments (clear)