Slashdot Mirror
New T-Shirt Sewing Robot Can Make As Many Shirts Per Hour As 17 Factory Workers (qz.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Quartz: In 2015, after years of research, SoftWear Automation introduced LOWRY, a sewing robot, or sewbot, that uses machine vision to spot and adjust to distortions in the fabric. Though initially only able to make simple products, such as bath mats, the technology is now advanced enough to make whole t-shirts and much of a pair of jeans. According to the company, it also does it far faster than a human sewing line. SoftWear Automation's big selling point is that one of its robotic sewing lines can replace a conventional line of 10 workers and produce about 1,142 t-shirts in an eight-hour period, compared to just 669 for the human sewing line. Another way to look at it is that the robot, working under the guidance of a single human handler, can make as many shirts per hour as about 17 humans. The company has emerged as a leader among those trying to automate sewing, drawing the interest of businesses that make home goods and of course clothing manufacturers, including Tianyuan Garments Company, a Chinese firm that produces for brands such as Adidas and Armani. Tianyuan Garments has invested $20 million in a 100,000-square foot factory in Little Rock, Arkansas, planned to open in 2018. The factory will be staffed with 21 robotic production lines supplied by SoftWear Automation, and will be capable of making 1.2 million t-shirts a year.
No. OMG, just No.
Instead of $12, can I get a decent shirt, made locally, not by children in Asia, for $3? Perhaps you can be employed in servicing the machines.
Please, go throw a brick through the window of a combine, or modern tractor, and insist we all go back to manual reaping and threshing. Or tear down miles of electrified fence, spill the livestock from the feedlots, and insist it's your God given right to be a shepherd.
When you realize the futility in that, then maybe you should learn to code. Or play a musical instrument. Or sing and dance. Or raise and love a child. Or extract a principle of nature from odd and surprising observations. Or recycle the mountains of plastic floating in the south Pacific, or your local landfill. When machines can do all those things then you can smash society without me getting in your way. Except, if a machine could raise and love a child, perhaps a special loving machine can be made just for you and your rage....
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
Automation is gonna be kinda like global warming, short term signs are so subtle, that it's easy to miss the long term trend but bam! It will hit someday. The U3 graph going back to 1950s does show a trend where the peaks of unemployment would be the valleys now:
https://www.economicgreenfield.com/2014/07/03/u-3-and-u-6-unemployment-rate-long-term-reference-charts-as-of-july-3-2014/
Anyway, unlike what economics teaches, I think humans do have limited wants and needs and that's the problem. Our limit is connected to our (inability) to multitask and our limited attention span. For example, when I'm really into a good book, or movie, unlimited wants and needs can't kick in and say I need 10 good songs or movies right that minute. Same with food for most people.
I mention this because that's how people usually argue out of this automation problem. Something like, "oh yeah, all the carriage makers just moved onto cars!"
You see, that's true but so many of our industries are tied to solving old wants and needs (cars - age old point A to B problem), or this article about clothes, etc.
What happens when industry effectively solves the problem so that no human can compete, like sewing clothing here... will every sewing machine operator become a fashion designer? While I'm sure like printing in the past, this tech will open doors to more designers, it won't be any fraction to recover the lost jobs. Just like we can't have a poet and artist based economy (from products to services).
Now, it may not happen this decade, or century even, but if progress continues, I'm sure enough there will be a point when mundane human wants are effectively satisfied and the people left unemployed will not be remotely equipped to handle any other type of need or want no matter their education.
The real question is how to handle that transition period where employment needs to keep going... but not everyone (or even half) can be employed.
For everyone saying the unemployed will rise up against the AI and automation of generic manual labor and white collar jobs just remember one thing - this advancement applies to the military as well. Once the autonomous military capabilities, including automated manufacturing, exceed the manual ones, humanity will be at the complete mercy of those few who own the armies and factories unlike any time in all human history. Good luck with that humans.
The number of jobs isn't shrinking. There is an almost infinite amount of work out there which _could_ be done by someone.
No, that's bullshit on literally every level. First, nothing human is almost infinite. We're tiny little squishy things. Second, we are using up natural capital faster than it can be replenished already. We need to engage in less economic activity, not more. We use up our year's allotment of resources by mid-August. We need to do less work as a species, or we will surely perish. Third, in order for someone to be paid for work, someone has to be willing to pay for it. It's not enough for it to theoretically be work, it has to actually be work. And the ultra-wealthy are accumulating cash that they literally cannot physically spend before they die, and then refusing to invest it, which is how jobs are created. They're not the "job creators", they are the job preventers.
The question is, what will people choose to do in order to maximize their effort to benefit others the most
The question is, will the already-rich fucks who have all the money take their finger off the wheel, and start placing bets themselves so that someone else can have some money?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"