Slashdot Mirror


Just 14 People Make 500,000 Tons of Steel a Year in Austria (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader shares a Bloomberg Businessweek feature: The Austrian village of Donawitz has been an iron-smelting center since the 1400s, when ore was dug from mines carved out of the snow-capped peaks nearby. Over the centuries, Donawitz developed into the Hapsburg Empire's steel-production hub, and by the early 1900s it was home to Europe's largest mill. With the opening of Voestalpine AG's new rolling mill this year, the industry appears secure. What's less certain are the jobs. The plant, a two-hour drive southwest of Vienna, will need just 14 employees to make 500,000 tons of robust steel wire a year -- vs. as many as 1,000 in a mill with similar capacity built in the 1960s. Inside the facility, red-hot metal snakes its way along a 700-meter (2,297-foot) production line. Yet the floors are spotless, the only noise is a gentle hum that wouldn't overwhelm a quiet conversation, and most of the time the place is deserted except for three technicians who sit high above the line, monitoring output on a bank of flatscreens. "We have to forget steel as a core employer," says Wolfgang Eder, Voestalpine's chief executive officer for the past 13 years. "In the long run we will lose most of the classic blue-collar workers, people doing the hot and dirty jobs in coking plants or around the blast furnaces. This will all be automated."

29 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. So what happened to all the employers? by chubs · · Score: 2

    I haven't gone looking, but I'd be interested to see what happened to the economy of a 600+ year old steel town.

    1. Re: So what happened to all the employers? by chubs · · Score: 2

      That's kind of what I'm getting at. This is a perfect case study for modern Luddite thinking. Do we a) see people finding new work or b) see massive unemployment and as the plant owners get rich while everyone else becomes homeless? Both arguments get made regularly on Slashdot.

    2. Re: So what happened to all the employers? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Do we a) see people finding new work or b) see massive unemployment and as the plant owners get rich while everyone else becomes homeless?

      In this particular case it is a) and not b). The steel mill is heavily subsidized, and may still be losing money. No one is getting rich. Meanwhile, Austrian unemployment is at 5.7%, which is low by European standards, and Donawitz is in easy commuting distance of plenty of opportunities. Or people can move to Vienna, which is 90 minutes away.

      Both arguments get made regularly on Slashdot.

      Those arguments are about widespread changes throughout an economy, not a single isolated factory. Of course there will be other jobs if one factory automates. But what happens when they ALL automate?

    3. Re: So what happened to all the employers? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Of course there will be other jobs if one factory automates. But what happens when they ALL automate?

      Then we will have reached the next level. There's no fundamental law of nature that we as a species need factories staffed by people.
      There WAS a time, in our past, where there was not a single factory in existence.

      So it will be just the next transition on the scale of moving from No Factories to large Workshops to Human production lines, and finally to Automated manufacture, with similar scale of ramifications.

      Also, in such environment --- nobody will get rich selling the spoils from their factories, unless there's an economy of people to buy their products (If not, then the price will go down, until it approaches the now lower marginal cost of production which has been reduced due to the lower labor requirement).

    4. Re:So what happened to all the employers? by c0l0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I grew up in Trofaiach, the town next to Donawitz (less than 10km from the steel plant). My grandfather worked there as an electrician from the 1950s to the 1990s. While I did visit the local Erzberg musem (there's an ore mining operation ~30km north of Donawitz in a town called Eisenerz where they have the kind of museums and parks you'd expect a site with such a rich history to have) during my childhood, I can't really remember what it was supposed to be like during the rule of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy - but the latest developments in the are are not very pretty.

      Both Leoben (the city that Donawitz is a part of) and Eisenerz shed a MASSIVE amount of population - in the 1970s, Eisenerz was at ~15k inhabitants, while these days, I think it's less than 7k. Leoben fell from 42k people to ~18k or so. Since the steel industry has been privatized in the 1980s, thousands of jobs have been cut, while corporate profits soared - so whoever is still there and still has a job is pretty well off still. All in all, however, the whole Bundesland (federal state) of Steiermark/Styria (this is where Arnold is from :)), is pretty much perceived to be in a downward spiral since then, due to market forces at work - industry is lot cheaper to do elsewhere, and you can only compete so much on superior quality of product alone.

      --
      :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

      YTARY!
    5. Re:So what happened to all the employers? by G00F · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just go look at the older coal towns.(or mining) I've seen many through out the US.

      They've dried up, the place remains a sad shell dependent on outside help. Many state and other officials try making deals with move in other industry, but it's never enough.

      For example: Here in Utah, Price was a once such a town. They got Sorenson Communications to build a TTY(a deaf text to phone service) it still dries up.(w/ text being replaced by video)

      Jobs don't materialize just because there are people wanting work. And not every person can be trained to do every position.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    6. Re: So what happened to all the employers? by losfromla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, in such environment --- nobody will get rich selling the spoils from their factories, unless there's an economy of people to buy their products (If not, then the price will go down, until it approaches the now lower marginal cost of production which has been reduced due to the lower labor requirement).

      Agreed. So, where will all these people with ready cash for buying the products get their cash from? You no doubt understand that there must be a significant volume of people making purchases so it can't be the 1% which sustain these factories. How will a significant portion of the 99% be able to make purchases when we reach this "next level" of which you speak? What is this next level? How does the transition to it begin and how do we all get the signal that we need to move to it? What or who makes the first moves?

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    7. Re:So what happened to all the employers? by mspohr · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe the headline says "Just 14 people make 500,000 tons of steel...".
      This is wrong. These people are not making steel. They take steel that somebody else has made and turn it into wire.
      They are making wire, not steel.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    8. Re: So what happened to all the employers? by Lord+Crc · · Score: 2

      You see the same with programmers. With each new framework, with each new testing suite, code profiler etc.pp., the number of people necessary to develop and maintain a given project is reduced. While programmers will be needed in the foreseeable future, their number might be much less than today.

      This assumes the projects will stay the same in complexity and in numbers.

      At least at my work, for almost every project, there's a large number of things the client would love to have but which we can't do because it would require too much manpower and thus is too expensive for the client. Some projects are just too expensive in total, so never gets off the ground.

      So I think the increase in productivity would be offset by an increase in overall project complexity, and in the number of projects that become viable to do. Of course it's hard to predict just how this interplay will pan out.

  2. Re:Euroweenies took r jobs!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nope. China took the jobs. List of countries by steel production. China produces five times as much steel as the EU, and ten times as much as America.

    Steel is a really bad money-losing business to be in. An automated steel mill may seem clean, but you also need coal mines, coke kilns, limestone quarries, etc. It is better to let someone else make it, and just buy what we need.

  3. No worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's OK because Donald Trump will retrain the steel workers so they can get a job at Blockbuster Video.

  4. Wait a second... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why didn't they just employ thousands of people that just work for a few minutes a day? Oh yeah, reality kicked in. -_-

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Tell me something I don't know ... by Freischutz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "We have to forget steel as a core employer," says Wolfgang Eder, Voestalpine's chief executive officer for the past 13 years. "In the long run we will lose most of the classic blue-collar workers, people doing the hot and dirty jobs in coking plants or around the blast furnaces. This will all be automated."

    Tell me something I don't know like, for example, how will the economy work when 90% of the jobs are automated. Will we have a situation like in ancient Rome where the rich people who owned masses of slaves they used to bankrupt small businesses and farmers by undercutting them with cheap labour but then ended up feeding the unemployed citizen masses simply out of a deep rooted and very real fear of the unwashed citizen masses rising up, dragging the moneyed classes out of their luxury villas and either throwing them to the lions or just crucifying them in the atrium of their own luxury villa? Will our unemployed kids and grand kids be living off of handouts from the rich oligarchs who own the automated factories? ... and how will an economy work when only 10% or less of the population are employed either designing new robots or staring at flatscreen making sure that things are running smoothly?

    1. Re:Tell me something I don't know ... by chubs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this argument is it assumes that owning an automated factory = profit. When everyone is unemployed, they stop buying cars. When they stop buying cars, automated factories have to stop making cars. When they stop making cars, they stop buying steel. When they stop buying steel, the steel mill from this story stops making steel. Etc. at some point, they either have to pass some of their savings on to the consumers or close shop, as the consumers will be making next to nothing in the scenario you describe.

    2. Re:Tell me something I don't know ... by chubs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wasn't referring to automated steel making "everyone unemployed". I was referring to Freischutz's scenario: "how will the economy work when 90% of the jobs are automated".

    3. Re:Tell me something I don't know ... by sourcerror · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, we'll all be gainfully employed as artist-prostitutes.

    4. Re: Tell me something I don't know ... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why should robots bother doing all that hard work in the first place? They could just hire all the unemployed humans to do it for them.

    5. Re:Tell me something I don't know ... by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      That's a nice utopian vision you've got there... I can imagine several other possible outcomes, none of which seem better for the majority of the population.

  6. Re:Euroweenies took r jobs!! by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is better to let someone else make it, and just buy what we need.

    Let THEM deal with the pollution, costs, etc?

    If a steel plant can't be built and operated in the US as they are in China, then no one in the US should be buying steel from China.

    What is considered inhuman working conditions here are inhuman working conditions there. What is considering environmentally damaging here is environmentally damaging there. Etc. Etc.

    Just because it's "over there" doesn't mean that working conditions and environmental impacts are magically made acceptable

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  7. Terrible Jobs by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know people that used to work in steel mills years ago. You don't want those jobs! They are horribly dangerous!

    One of the stories involved two coworkers walking on a catwalk above the blast furnace in full heat suits (think Jamie's suit from Mythbusters). One of the workers leaned on the railing and it let go. He was vaporized before he hit the surface of the steel.

    The stories like this go on and on. People crushed between rail cars, etc. Sure, the steel industry paid really well, because it had to. The working conditions were so terrible, no one would work there otherwise.

    This kind of extreme work environment is ideal for automation. I'd rather see a robot get destroyed in an accident than a person killed.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Terrible Jobs by jimminy_cricket · · Score: 5, Informative

      My father in law worked at the local rail yard. One evening one of the employees was accidentally caught between the couplers as two rail cars were being coupled. His lower torso was completely smashed and compressed in the couplers. Because his lungs and heart were above the couplers, he continued living as the compression of the coupled cars kept him from bleeding out. They called his family and they came over to say their goodbyes. Then they uncoupled the cars and he died. Awful.

    2. Re:Terrible Jobs by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Also, this is why spending money trying to return basic metalworking and manufacturing to developed nations is a huge waste. The only way these industries can return and remain competitive is by being almost completely automated.

      You've just made the strongest possible argument for why we should spend money returning those industries to developed nations, if indeed it'll force them to automate. Do you enjoy being responsible for the deaths of developing world workers through your purchases?

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  8. Re:Euroweenies took r jobs!! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Funny

    Steel is a really bad money-losing business to be in. An automated steel mill may seem clean, but you also need coal mines, coke kilns, limestone quarries, etc.

    You could use Pepsi kilns instead of coke kilns. In blind taste tests 2 out of 3 diabetics preferred steel made using pepsi kilns.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  9. Re:Euroweenies took r jobs!! by Cryacin · · Score: 2

    Look at the pay rates for developers in India today. The days of price arbitrage are rapidly shrinking, and look at their population. It's all about gaining experience and then turning from cost cutting labour import to local work.

    In fact, when labor costs increase, just automate. Look at what's happening in China.

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  10. Saw this one coming... by Pezbian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If it's dangerous and/or boring, it's better to have a machine do it.

    Machines are getting better at a lot of things. My first time through college, I got a decent amount of PLC training, but those units are now entirely obsolete. Machine vision was a thing back then, but you needed a highly-specialized $6,000 ISA card just to grab frames and analyze them. Now, you can do it with a potato-grade webcam and a Raspberry Pi.

    I went back to school to get updated on as much as possible since I want to do maintenance now that Electronics and PC Repair have both taken a massive shit with everything moving toward being disposable. The maintenance guys I've met are all retiring and companies are aching to hire young blood. On top of that, industrial control boards still use through-hole components for durability reasons and I can repair that stuff in my sleep.

    --
    In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
  11. Better ask about the 3rd world immigrants by hazardPPP · · Score: 2

    I haven't gone looking, but I'd be interested to see what happened to the economy of a 600+ year old steel town.

    That's an interesting question, but not the central one here, looking at the big picture.

    People in the West fret about machines taking their jobs...but it's not people in the West who are going to be most affected. Yes, there will be people who will be stuck "in between" - their jobs will be automated away, but they will be too old / not adept enough to retrain for a new job (or simply, no one will want to hire them even if they do, for whatever reason). Western countries are however rich enough to take care of those people - yes, relatively speaking, for them it will suck, going from a job to being on the dole until retirement, but this will be a small % of the population.

    It's all the aspiring immigrants from poorer countries that will be screwed. Countries like Austria have been importing labour for the blue-collar jobs since the 1950s. Even as the post-war economic boom slowed down, they needed to continue due to dwindling fertility levels (avg. EU TFR 1.58 births/woman - below replacement). If these jobs are automated, it won't be the locals missing out - it will be the prospective immigrants. Western countries might just severely restrict immigration (and accept only small numbers of highly qualified individuals).

    This is a problem, not directly for the West, but for the Third World. When the West "poaches" highly qualified people (engineers, scientists, doctors) from the Third World, this is usually great for the West and for those individuals, but terrible for the Third World (which is loosing its most qualified people, of whom it almost always has a shortage and pays a relative fortune to train). Remittances are the only way the Third World profits in that case, usually. However when the West takes in unqualified manual labourers, it's often a win-win-win situation: the West fills jobs it cannot fill with its local population; the immigrants get a higher standard of living; and the Third World replaces often unemployable people who are a social/political problem with money-sending expats. Those who remain there can even, in some cases, benefit from the reduction of the labour pool as wages go up.

    Not to mention outsourcing, which is "immigrantless immigration" or "job emigration" - Western countries send over the jobs instead of bringing in people. So what happens when demand for such imported labour in the West disappears? What happens when Western multinationals realize it's cheaper to produce locally in automated 20-people factories than somewhere far away (where labour is cheap but from where transportation costs may be high)? Some (many?) Third World countries may become pressure cookers (some already are - they will get worse) of unemployed and underemployed people. What happens when tons of would-be immigrants come to borders of Western countries, and those countries turn them away since they the only thing they would do with 90% of them is put them on welfare? Now THAT'S going to be the problem, not unemployment in some town in Austria.

  12. Re:Euroweenies took r jobs!! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    even if it is a trade war instead of a shooting war.

    That is not how trade wars work. In a trade war, countries cut export prices, while raising tariffs to keep imports out. In a trade war, you can still buy whatever you need, you just can't sell what you have.

    60% of steel produced in America is recycled from scrap, not forged.

    If international trade in steel stops, that will hurt China far more than it will hurt the US.

  13. That's now how any of this works by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    The Rich don't need you to buy their crap when they already own everything. Take a look at Apple, who became the most profitable company in human history by selling low volume, high margin items to the upper class (save for the occasional poor person trying to keep up with joneses).

    Face it, the Rich don't need you or me. They'll claim ownership of everything and we'll give it to them because we can't bear the thought of somebody having food they didn't work all day for while we toil all day in the few jobs that are left. That's how it was for literately thousands of years of recorded history. What makes you think it won't go back to that?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  14. Incredibly misleading headline by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Incredibly misleading headline.
    They are not making steel.
    They are rolling steel already delivered in billet form into rod and wire.

    The thing is called a "mini-mill" and I saw one running some time around 1989 with around twenty people total running the site.