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.

12 of 409 comments (clear)

  1. huh by supernova87a · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I guess all that Bangladeshi child labor was still too expensive huh? Had to cheapen it even more?

    And is this supposed to be great news for Little Rock, Arkansas, which will see a huge growth in the 27 jobs needed to operate this new automated factory?

  2. US production by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    US production per worker is currently about $58,000, and seems to be going up by $10,000 per decade.

    That's per capita, meaning "per person". If the per-capita output were distributed equally to every man, woman, and child everyone would have about $58.000 to spend. Each year. Including kids and babies. And they could do it again next year.

    This will only go up as AI and automation take over. A huge number of driving jobs will be taken over by self-driving vehicles in the next decade (already happening with long-haul trucks), and AI and robotics will take over ever more of the production, working 24/7 and making more goods, more cheaply, and faster than humans.

    We need to transition away from the current economic system real soon, or suffer massive riots and the downfall of our culture as unemployed people riot and take it down for us.

    We need a way to spread the wealth out a little more evenly. UBI is one way, and we're getting really close to the point where UBI will be cheaper than the cost of government assistance plus the lost cost of higher crime and prison for the poor.

    Perhaps taxing the robots and using the money to fund the rest of UBI would work.

    We could also lower the SS retirement age, or go to a 4-day work week. Lots of options, many would work or could be made to work.

    But we have to start transitioning just about now, or risk the downfall of our culture.

    1. Re:US production by TWX · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I would rather actually fund education so more people would be qualified for work beyond being a meat-part in a machine, doing the same thing over and over again for days, months, years.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:US production by Whibla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I'm a lineman busting my ass day in and day out risking my life and limb for your electricity to stay on, and I have the opportunity to work for $60k, but you're making 58k sitting on your ass collecting UBI, guess what I won't be doing for much longer

      If someone is making 58k on UBI and you're making 60k as a lineman then, guess what, their take home is 58k and yours is 118k. Why ignore the fact that the U in UBI stands for universal?

      If I make $50k and a loaf of bread costs $2 before the automation / AI schism, but I make $100k and a loaf of bread costs $4 after, nothing's changed, except the number on my income tax return looks more impressive.

      One possible answer to this 'problem' is that there's only so much bread you can eat. If you spent, and still spend, 40% of your salary on bread (as a synonym for food) previously you had $30k left over whereas now you have 60k left to spend.

      Oh wait, your argument is that everything will inflate. An 'interesting' hypothesis, albeit not one grounded in reality. Quite apart from the fact that introduction of UBI wouldn't double overall income / wages you're also completely ignoring the changes that are the reason for its suggested introduction in the first place. Now, while it is true that real wages in many western economies aren't keeping up with inflation, and haven't been for a while, a large part of the reason for this is what I think of as international rebalancing. If you take a look outside your relatively pampered life and get a bit of global socio-historical perspective you might start to see why it's happening, why it's necessary, and why it's 'right'.

      If it costs $5 / $6 / $7 then I've lost out on buying power, and if that trend continues, it won't be long before I'm waiting in the bread line, burning $100 bills to stay warm; right along side the other 'millionaires'.

      Sigh. And yet more FUD.

      T-Shirt robots and other productive things won't be HERE, contributing to the GDP, paying into our tax base. They'll be in China and other countries where existing production lines are, because the supply chains are there to support it, because we friggin gutted ours. The engineering and design jobs may be here, for a little while. Until those are also taken to China, to be closer to the actual production.

      From TFS: "Tianyuan Garments has invested $20 million in a 100,000-square foot factory in Little Rock, Arkansas, planned to open in 2018". Sure, in comparison to recent figures relating to investment in factory production in the US, $20 million is small beans but we are talking $5 T-Shirts here, not $500 phones.

  3. The real value by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The real value of this tech is that it will allow for bespoke clothing to become a lot more accessible. Whether or not this iteration is capable of it, that future is inevitable.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  4. Good idea, but... by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would rather actually fund education so more people would be qualified for work beyond being a meat-part in a machine, doing the same thing over and over again for days, months, years.

    That was a good idea in previous decades.

    Currently the number of jobs is shrinking, while the workforce is not(*). it's already causing a lot of stress in our society, and probably one reason for the recent election results.

    The system was able to soak up some of the excess - the meme of children living with their parents until well into adulthood is one result - but it's starting to show signs of saturation. The burgeoning debt of education versus finding a job, currently being a topic of concern, is one bit of evidence.

    Training and education are certainly important, but it doesn't address the problem. It'll only result in educated unemployed.
    We need a way to support non-workers in our society, and pretty quick.

    (*) Roughly speaking, population is remaining steady. Meanwhile, productivity keeps rising.

    1. Re:Good idea, but... by Calydor · · Score: 1, Interesting

      So where will the people with skills in fine coordination for sewing and similar tasks go when all those tasks get automated by robots?

      Designing the clothes? How many different designs of t-shirts can you make that don't just look like a palette swap - something I'm sure can also be easily automated? Bonus points: The designs have to be something people will actually wear.

      In the past, changes like these have pushed people to other industries - but now we are automating ALL THE INDUSTRIES. Then what?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:Good idea, but... by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is fun to hypothesize about robots taking over, and how society is going to adapt to post-scarcity, but that is theoretical conjecture, and not based on the reality of what is actually happening today.

      Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.

      Human beings, unlike some other living creatures on Earth, are not evolved and adapted to any specific environment. If the environment changes, we'll pick up our marbles and go play somewhere else. The history of humanity is a series of great disruptions and changes . . . sure, a lot of folks die prematurely along the way, but the vast majority seems to just muddle on.

      Human beings are like toenail fungus . . . very difficult to get rid of completely.

      Actually, automation has steadily been destroying jobs at a pretty good rate. The thing is, and what we humans are good at, that we're adapting to new conditions. Take garbage collection, previously you had 4 people, 2 operators and two collectors. Now that's down to 1 or 2 operators and realistically, the 2nd operator is only required by union or OH&S rules. As I've said, we've been adapting, university participation rates amongst young people in 1950 were 3.4% of the UK population, in 2013 it's over 50%. We've been replacing the automated jobs with higher skilled opportunities.

      Now this robot isn't going to replace any jobs here in the developed world because we either outsourced clothing manufacturing to the developing world decades ago... or bought it back in recent years to be done by robots. The only real clothing industry in the west that requires staffing, are the high end tailors (read: completely bespoke, the cost of which makes your made to measure Armani look positively peasant in comparison) and that isn't a huge industry. So this robot will only affect developing nations with large manual seamstress operations (I.E. China, Honduras, Bangladesh).

      That being said, advances in technology are looking to put a fair few industries out of human employment. Not just manual labour, but a lot of what used to be considered, safe careers will be replaced by soft AI's. Particularly ones that don't require a great deal of problem solving and rely on applying situations to rules (I.E. accounting, legal services) and there's no stopping it. So its a good thing we're considering what happens in the near future where the number of workers far outpaces the number of opportunities available to them. This kind of thing has happened in the past, if it wasn't dealt with in advance (like in the UK and US) it usually ended with the leaders and aristocrats being hoisted from balconies (I.E. Russia).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Good idea, but... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.

      Yep. Watching old documentaries it's crazy to think about how many people doing things used to take.

      PBS had a Walt Disney documentary and they showed rooms full of people drawing. Complaining of low pay, long hours and no credit. A middle schooler could crank out the level of animation they were doing with some scripting.

      The old rail way system is fascinating at how many jobs it used to take. People to mechanically throw switches. People to go around and lubricate every single point. Teams of engineers to draw machine test each part. All sans internet. Teams of people to load and unload every car by hand.

      Mining was the same way. Human history is full of "throw warm bodies at the problem, figure it out, automate it and move on". Computers came about because we figured out and automated a whole lot of everything we used to do before them.

    4. Re:Good idea, but... by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps the stock market it at record highs _because_ interest is approaching negative rates? If you can't put your savings in the bank that money has to be invested somewhere. More investors chasing the same shares = higher share prices.

    5. Re:Good idea, but... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Folks have been whining about how automation will destroy our civilization tomorrow . . . since about when it started, back in the 1700's. That tomorrow never seems to come.

      You are kinda whining too, but let's take this elsewhere.

      How about some prognostication or even discussion of what might follow? It is bottome tier of the food chain easy to say Everyone will have jobs, world without end, amen. But that's ending up sounding like Malthus detractors who say he will always be wrong, and that means that you argue for an infinite number of people being able to exist on earth because "Malthus is always wrong".

      In other words, it is folly to declare that everyone will get better jobs after all the jobs are gone, based on the fact that the industrial revolution created jobs in industry. The goal of the automation is not to make factories that make stuff. The goal is to get rid of humans in all money generating processes in order to lessen expenses and increase profits for shareholders. Humans extracting money from the process by employment will be marked for elimination when possible.

      So what do you think? After almost all menial work is gone, what will people do? What happens as this process moves up the food chain?

      So far, the answers I've received to this question - when I've received one - are along the lines of "I don't know, but I do know more jobs will be created" Which isn't an answer - its an expression of faith.

      So I'll start......

      As success in elimination of human employees continues, there will be a large and growing class of surplus population that do not produce. It is pretty simple that this will be a drain on the economy, as more people will be unemployed than employed.

      Here is a forking moment. When we decide as societies whether to keep this surplus population alive or not. Will we decide that their lives are worth something, or will we continue to believe in the adage that has been true for most of humanity - work or die?

      The other concept is almost a utopian idea, of people freed from labor if they wish, to pursue education, or just hang out and enjoy life.

      I'm saying about 75 percent likely that we will choose the first setup - the excess population will be marked for death. But most of us don't want to have an obviously genocidal situation, so we will have some pretty grisly wars. I predict somewhere around 95 to 99 percent reduction in human population.

      Then, if we haven't reduced ourselves to hunter gatherer status - which cures the problem of employment - we'll hopefully be able to enjoy the fruits of a society where work is optional.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. Sutures by cerberusss · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how big the step would be to get that robot to make a suture, sewing skin instead of a t-shirt.

    Two years ago, I had a bite at a restaurant but the meal didn't sit so well. I had to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, and for some reason lost consciousness. I got to my senses and discovered I was bleeding profusely from an actually very small cut in my forehead. I went to the doc next morning and he stitched the cut.

    Two weeks later, he removed the stitches and told me he was quite happy with the result. He mentioned that the cut was actually not a straight cut, but a "hook" which apparently is difficult to cleanly close without later showing an obvious scar.

    From the summary: "uses machine vision to spot and adjust to distortions in the fabric". It would be very interesting to know whether it could lay a stitch to prevent scar tissue.

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?