Countries that Are Most Highly Invested in Automation (ifr.org)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Countries that Are Most Highly Invested in Automation (ifr.org)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @06:49AM from the closer-look dept.

A report by the International Federation of Robotics looks at the countries that are most highly invested in manufacturing automation. The countries with the ten highest densities of robots are, in order: South Korea (631 per 10,000 workers), Singapore (488), Germany (309), Japan (303), Sweden (223), Denmark (211), United States (189), Italy (185), Belgium (184), and Taiwan (177). Overall, the automation of production is accelerating around the world: 74 robot units per 10,000 employees (up from 66 in 2015) is the new average of global robot density in the manufacturing industries.

57 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Manufacturing Automation by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:53 · Score: 1

Note because it's not mentioned in the summary: this report is only regarding manufacturing automation.
1. Re:Manufacturing Automation by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  The maximum usable number of robots in an economy at any point in time would likely depend on the structure of economy (livelihoods) and on the development of technology like soft robotics for those more sensitive jobs.
Stop complaining... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:54 · Score: 0

... or I'll replace you with an articulating robot arm!
You forgot ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 06:58 · Score: 0

This report clearly misses the impact of sex robots - hey, everybody needs some lovin' every now and again. That's got to shuffle the rankings!
1. Re: You forgot ... by Brockmire · 2018-02-13 09:58 · Score: 2
  
  Damn it, I picked up the wrong oil!
We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by swschrad · 2018-02-13 07:02 · Score: 0

make America meh again

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
1. Re:We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-02-13 07:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  We're a nation of specialists: scientists, engineers, programmers, etc. This means our manufacturing is heavily weighted toward bleeding-edge technologies which are very difficult to automate because they have complex construction and assembly, are relatively new, and are quickly replaced by newer versions. Our tool manufacturing is mostly automated already, but things like HPLC machines, DNA sequencers and such are high price low volume devices which have major overhauls in their design on an annual basis.
2. Re:We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  That's actually surprisingly high for a country that is not a major exporter of manufactured goods.
3. Re:We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by MindPrison · 2018-02-13 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  That's actually surprisingly high for a country that is not a major exporter of manufactured goods.
  Is it? *cough* Sex Robots *cough*...
  
  --
  What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
4. Re:We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by careysub · 2018-02-13 07:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is a shame then that we are not a well educated nation. Try sorting this this chart by various age cohorts. When it comes to tertiary ("college") education the U.S. is current ranked 7th overall. Not good for a nation of "specialists". But it gets worse. The oldest cohort, nearing retirement is 4th internationally. But the youngest is 12th, and since the ranking gets worse as you get younger, and all signs point to a continuing deterioration in support for higher education, we can expect it to be much worse, rather than better of even the same in another 10 years.
  
  --
  Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
5. Re:We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by rogoshen1 · 2018-02-13 08:15 · Score: 2
  
  But i'd be willing to bet we're absolutely in a league of our own when it comes to debt for graduates.
  USA USA USA!
6. Re:We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by geekmux · 2018-02-13 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  ...But it gets worse. The oldest cohort, nearing retirement is 4th internationally. But the youngest is 12th, and since the ranking gets worse as you get younger, and all signs point to a continuing deterioration in support for higher education, we can expect it to be much worse, rather than better of even the same in another 10 years.
  When you say "continuing deterioration", are you referring to college graduates who can't find a decent job due to "entry-level" positions requiring a decade of experience? Or the fact that a college degree now creates crippling debt with questionable value-add? Or is it perhaps the government tightening down on federal student loans after amassing a trillion or two of outstanding debt?
  Just trying to understand what is really contributing to this deterioration. Might as well add "$100K Masters degree" to that list too, since a measly $60K college degree is now the new high school diploma.
7. Re:We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by NicknameUnavailable · 2018-02-13 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Paying for college is a scam to help strain the idiots such that the non-idiots have more relative advantage. It's a part of what makes us great. There are plenty of ways to get free college, or at least to come out of it with a degree that actually pays. All the best people are self-educated anyway, college as a degree system exists so rich people can weed out the moderately talented poor people from the untalented poor people without having to get to know them.
8. Re:We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  University Degrees don't mean shit about how educated your population is.
  90% of my education through the end of my college career was through the following sources: Parents, Internships, The Internet (random browsing), Books/Self-Learning, The Internet (structured learning), Industry certifications. I say this even though I have a masters degree.
  My IT education was beyond an undergraduate degree level by the time I made it to college. I earned a 3.9GPA in both graduate and undergraduate programs. The university did nothing for my skills besides provide paper that helps get jobs.
  99.99% of my education to date includes the above sources and WORK EXPERIENCE. In other words... having people WORK can make them far more educated than putting them in a room with some professor who has a powerpoint / white board. Undergraduate programs are worthless. An iPhone app can get you to the same point that an undergraduate degree can (in terms of REQUIRED knowledge to earn the degree, not what someone chooses to do above and beyond). Doctorate programs may be valuable but if you put that same person in the field they could be learning far more advanced and innovative things at a faster pace because they don't have to write a rigorous thesis about it.
  As the saying goes:
  Those who CAN, DO.
  Those who CAN'T, TEACH.
  Some people hate that in the USA you can take your "uneducated" ass and make an amazing life. Inset XYZ tech Billionaire here as proof that a freaking university degree doesn't mean crap regarding your true level of "education".
9. Re: We're Number 7! We're Number 7! by mapkinase · 2018-02-13 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  I do not understand. 3D printing of details and assembly of any number of complex details is very close. It does not matter how innovative your Next N3xt Generation Sequencer is.
  
  --
  I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Pretty low unemployment rate by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-13 07:02 · Score: 1

Unemployment rate in South Korea is pretty low. Cue the UBI crowd coming to yell about the sky falling, but eh.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.
1. Re:Pretty low unemployment rate by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Unemployment rate in South Korea is pretty low. Cue the UBI crowd coming to yell about the sky falling, but eh.
  Tip of the iceberg. Cue the head-in-ass crowd who will dismiss the impact until they're standing in the unemployment line.
2. Re:Pretty low unemployment rate by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-13 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  Do you remember the wooden shipping pallet?
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
how much is 1 robot worth by OrangeTide · 2018-02-13 07:03 · Score: 1

Is one robot worth 100 workers? If so the 631 to 10,000 number seems significant.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
1. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by Solandri · 2018-02-13 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  It's significant, but not in the way most people seem to think - that it means 100 people lose their jobs. Most of those people find other work.
  
  If one robot is worth 100 workers, then it means automating your entire workforce would increase the standard of living by 100x. That's such a huge increase that all sorts of welfare and UBI programs which are currently mathematically unsustainable (without amassing debt), becomes roundoff error. And the Star Trek economic utopia becomes reality.
2. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by Eloking · 2018-02-13 07:31 · Score: 2
  
  Is one robot worth 100 workers? If so the 631 to 10,000 number seems significant.
  My field is robotic and in the few dozen robot I've installed, none goes even near that 100 worker equivalent.
  At best, at very best a robot barely replace 9 workers (3 worker, 3 shift a day). But it's usually more 1-2.
  
  --
  Elok
3. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-13 07:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  If one robot is worth 100 workers, then it means automating your entire workforce would increase the standard of living by 100x.
  Only if your entire workforce keeps working. Technology increases the output of human labor (the only cost). To increase the output of human labor by 100 times, you create technology whereby the effort of 1 human labor hour produces the same output as previously requiring 100 human labor hours.
  If you make a machine which runs itself and keeps running without maintenance or other human input (like fuel), it's incurring no cost. If it runs forever, the output is infinite. On the other hand, if it costs 1,000 human labor hours to make it, it replaces 10 human labor hour per thousand hours of run time, and it runs for one hundred thousand hours, you're breaking even. Think about solar street lights with LED bulbs.
  
  That's such a huge increase that all sorts of welfare and UBI programs which are currently mathematically unsustainable (without amassing debt), becomes roundoff error.
  Actually, we can do that today, without raising taxes. Add in healthcare and the blunt plans there are something like a 0.9% tax cut on the rich, and no corporate tax increases; although you need to do a little adjustment there (see further down). The Dividend isn't really a UBI, but something new--related, though.
  I shoved the payroll tax for retirement and disability benefits up to the top tax bracket and got 43.7% instead of 39.6%, along with a bit of a mess along the way for effective tax rate in total. The ETR is higher in 2016 at $50,000, in that model; that changes rapidly, moving upwards and narrowing the gap between 2016 tax policy (ignore the TCJA; I'm repealing that) and the model. You can repair it in 2016 by raising the top tax rate in total to 45% and adjusting the income tax brackets to be more progressive--really a crucial step to clean up the mess I've made in all this restructuring.
  With OASDI staying on payrolls, two things happen. First, payroll taxes get backshifted into wages, so you don't get the wage boost (or price cut, depending on who you ask and how you look at it long-term) and employment increase (always) of reducing the cost of employing people. Second, you have that 0.9% tax cut on the top income earners, which you can reclaim to help fix the slight increase in ETR. By 2022 (earliest this can actually happen--Trump will veto), you can have that scenario without actually raising anyone's taxes.
  So... Dividend alone: no homelessness, no hunger, increases available jobs (probably full employment?), decreases cost of welfare (make people less-poor), trivial to pull off without increasing taxes in 2016. With universal healthcare: A little tougher to do without tax increases in total on someone, although probably can pull it off in 2022. Shunt OASDI payments entirely onto the rich: likely 45% top tax rate instead of 39.6%, higher wages at the low end, and lower unemployment (if we're not hitting permanent full employment already).
  This plan practically requires cutting working hours to avoid a labor shortage. I'm looking for a 7-hour work day or a 4-day work week.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
4. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by OrangeTide · 2018-02-13 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  So... Dividend alone: no homelessness, no hunger, increases available jobs (probably full employment?), decreases cost of welfare (make people less-poor), trivial to pull off without increasing taxes in 2016.
  There are a lot of people who don't care how the homeless are treated. There are a small number of people that care but in the wrong way, they get really upset if someone didn't "earn" everything. The idea that homeless would be given free money or free houses really triggers these types and turns them into a base of useful idiot voters. (useful because they are a mob driven by emotion)
  
  --
  “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
5. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  False assumption. What makes you think that the capitalists that fund all this will give the money they saved by using robots to the people who no longer work? If they could be forced to do so, sure. But otherwise we just move further into serfdom with no money.
6. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by HiThere · 2018-02-13 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  A definite point, and since this is about manufacturing work, a significant one that's unanswerable.
  For some jobs a robot can be worth 100,000 workers. For many others worth less than one. E.g., how many workers do you think it would take to replace an automated crane that can lift 5 tons 5 stories in half an hour? But generally an automated crane wouldn't be able to do anything else...or at least not much else.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
7. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by rogoshen1 · 2018-02-13 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  it's ironic that these are the same people (typically) who have zero problems with the insane amount of corporate welfare that defense contractors get every year.
  It's like if you see someone buying soda/junk food with an EBT card, it's the worst thing ever, and that person needs to be put in a special camp. But pissing away trillions on a newfangled fighter-jet that will likely never see real combat, that's okay, keep america strong and stuff.
8. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by geekmux · 2018-02-13 08:57 · Score: 2
  
  Is one robot worth 100 workers? If so the 631 to 10,000 number seems significant.
  My field is robotic and in the few dozen robot I've installed, none goes even near that 100 worker equivalent.
  At best, at very best a robot barely replace 9 workers (3 worker, 3 shift a day). But it's usually more 1-2.
  I think you're failing to take into account the benefits in certain scenarios. Aside from the fact a robot will not become sick, slow down, need maternity leave, workmans comp, disability, FMLA, or create a risk of a sexual harassment lawsuit (yeah, that last one can be very costly), the largest benefit automation can bring is for that shop that could only afford to run 8x5 before automation. After implementing automation they can run 24x7. In those situations that is a rather massive increase in overall output. You're not merely replacing 9 workers in that scenario.
9. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by Kjella · 2018-02-13 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  I think that depends on ability to scale. Here in Norway I saw the stats for a big robot warehouse, they picked 5.1 million items in a year with 55 robots. That's ~93k per robot, here in Norway we usually budget around 1750 hours/year. So that's 53 items per human-equivalent hour, right now it's just tens of thousands of stacked boxes but for humans it'd have to be miles and miles of shelf space. And robots don't misplace or pick the wrong box, they don't steal stuff, they don't drop stuff, they don't goof around, they don't need staff meetings etc. so they've only been growing. I can't find a current figure of number of deliveries, but they've expanded to 75 robots and sell for almost a billion dollars a year and in total they have 800 employees. I'm thinking it'd take many thousands the old way.
  If you're designing a robot to replace a human's job the way the human would do it then yes maybe it's 1-2. If you're designing the whole process to be done by robots it can be orders of magnitude faster. Like consider an industrial bakery, is this industrial robots? Or is it just Charlie Chaplin-age assembly line? It's certainly much faster than I'd bake at home or even an old fashioned baker making it in bulk.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
10. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 10:22 · Score: 0
  
  After implementing automation they can run 24x7. In those situations that is a rather massive increase in overall output. You're not merely replacing 9 workers in that scenario.
  Correct, you are replacing almost 11.
11. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 11:13 · Score: 0
  
  Uh no. Getting invaded by other countries, millions of folks slaughtered and the rest put in special camps is just a little worse than handing no money to folks on the street.
  But let me guess: I'm exagerrating because as we all know, we are the only aggressors and nobody actually wishes us any harm, right?
12. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by rogoshen1 · 2018-02-13 12:21 · Score: 1
  
  We managed to be on the winning side of two world wars without a single pair of foreign boots touching our soil.
  The argument that we need a trillion dollar+ jet program to help prevent something that didn't happen against much more evenly matched opponents is dubious at best.
  But who knows, maybe some country in the near future (besides the US) will maintain a blue water navy -- making that a potential outcome possible?
13. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 17:35 · Score: 0
  
  So... Dividend alone: no homelessness, no hunger, increases available jobs (probably full employment?), decreases cost of welfare (make people less-poor), trivial to pull off without increasing taxes in 2016
  How do you prevent the costs of living (eg, rent) going up immediately as much as the additional income?
  You've just devalued income (and eventually, the currency when it tracks against the value of labour output) by your UBI/dividend amount. Investors want to make back up their losses and market prices track against what people are willing to pay, rather than being more than loosely related to input costs - they all go up.
14. Re:how much is 1 robot worth by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-14 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I know. I think I can push back against that well enough, though. The real trouble is this shoves like $7,500/year down the pipe, not something like $300 per person. People might accept something small, but something so large will freak them out.
  Here's the thing: the Dividend also provides the minimum wage measure--yes, I'm fighting a war on multiple fronts here. Whenever the Dividend goes up such that full-time minimum wage is less than 2x the annual Dividend, I push minimum wage up to match. That means minimum wage in 2024 is like $9.75/hr, with a take-home income for a single full-time worker slightly higher than the 2016 take-home income of a $15/hr full-time worker. It also grows faster than cost-of-living, sharing productivity gains.
  That policy means that single worker is getting more take-home than FightFor$15 is trying to get them, and businesses are paying less in wages anyway. So working is rewarded (heavily), which is great; but a lot of the progressives want higher minimum wages "to make the businesses pay" (never mind that the consumer pays). It's an ideal for them, and they won't like the low wage number because they perceive minimum wages as hitting employers in the pocket (erroneous), as "fairness", and as an anti-poverty measure (also erroneous).
  Of course, I want shorter working hours and stronger worker protections. I'm the only one pushing for that, so far.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
Definition by darkain · 2018-02-13 07:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

What is the definition of a "robot" here? Is it something that is more human or animal oriented? I'm sitting right next to a printer, which replaced a type writer. They are functionally the same, press ink into paper in specific patterns. Because it isn't a large mechanical beast pressing down keys to apply lettered ink to paper, is it no longer in the classification of a "robot", even though it uses mechanical gears to move the paper and print head around? This could be applied to all sorts of computerized mechanical devices all around us now. Where is the line drawn to build these stats? And as such, then the stats could easily be swayed larger or smaller to fit a given narrative that one wants to persuade the reader to.
1. Re:Definition by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Assembly line robots, doing the job a human used to do.
2. Re:Definition by Spy+Handler · 2018-02-13 07:19 · Score: 2
  
  Did you skim the summary and miss the word manufacturing? Your HP deskjet is not involved in manufacturing.
  Another key word would be "automation". Meaning, a task that used to be done by a human, is no longer done by a human. Car painting robot is a valid example.
3. Re:Definition by RightwingNutjob · 2018-02-13 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't answer the question. Is one robot arm a robot? What about one with a welding attachment and another one with something else at the same station running off a common program? It's probably more meaningful to estimate capital cost or maintenance cost vs human salary, but that would count less sexy capital equipment like CNCs and automatic canning machines, so you won't be able to have the click-baity headling about the robots putting us all out of work.
  
  TLDR version: industrial increases productivity. Has for centuries (plural).
4. Re:Definition by darkain · 2018-02-13 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  How are books manufacturered? The HP Deskjet replaced the traditional hand done printing press.
5. Re:Definition by Eloking · 2018-02-13 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  If our field, we consider "Robot" machine that have been created to replace human manual labor independently (so an excavator isn't a robot). As for a printer, it's a machine since it doesn't replace manual labor. It replace a task, not a worker.
  The best example of robot are "Industrial Robot" and this article talk about those robot.
  
  --
  Elok
6. Re:Definition by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  You can replace 20 hand-cranked milling machines with one CNC mill. One operator can use 4 mills. So, CNC mill reduced workforce 80->1
  Now You add pallet loaders to each CNC mills. And get 3 times more output. Pallet loader hardly looks like a robot.
  And now you have some odd parts which need robot arm to help loading CNC mills.
  So, how many robots do You have now ? And is CNC mill robot ? Or pallet loader ? Or robot-arm ? And which one reduces workforce most ?
7. Re: Definition by Brockmire · 2018-02-13 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  The Desk jet? Lol. Do you know what a book even is?
No need to be alarmed. by Eloking · 2018-02-13 07:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Robotic engineering is my field and I'm sure a lot, even here in /., still feel threatened by the rise of robots. You know, the "Robot will take our job and kill us all" mojo.
First, don't forget that mondialisation have cut a lot, LOT more occident job than robot. I'm sure everyone here know someone whose job have been lost after the plant have been relocated in China. In fact, the way I see it, robotisation will help to bring back more job lost to the chinese that we'll lose.
Second, robot "can't" do everything (well, not yet). Most industrial robot application are still hightly repetitive (read "boring") manual task. There's a lot of our customer that need to bring people from other countries because Millennials doesn't want to do them.
Third, robot still need worker. I had that plant where all riveting were done by employees with big machineries. Because of poor ergonomy and all the vibration, most workers had a lot of back pain problems avec a few dozens years. They were pissed to see us at first, but now everyone want his own robot so he can sit down and listen to the radio while he monitor the robot work. Futhermore, robot operator have higher salary than a simple manufacture worker.
Of course, I know I'm indirectly responsible that some people lost their jobs. There's that new contrat we just got where I met with my boss to share my concern that our client want the robots to fire a few people even if he say he won't. It's part of the job and I live with it thinking that I bringing more good than bad for the society.

--
Elok
1. Re:No need to be alarmed. by bluefoxlucid · 2018-02-13 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  We need social programs for the transitional unemployment. It will go away, but we need to carry these people who are caught in the path of progress. It's a complex economic topic.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
2. Re:No need to be alarmed. by HiThere · 2018-02-13 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  Do you distinguish between a robot and an automated tool?
  What's you're definition? I often see the term robot used in a context where telefactor would be more appropriate.
  What distinction do you make between a robot and a numerically controlled tool?
  To me a robot must have significant intelligence. Not just internal logic, but actual situational evaluation. Behavior that has been called "Sphexish" (like that of a particular wasp) doesn't qualify as intelligence, as it appears to be all preprogrammed responses to situational cues. (In another place I argue that this kind of thing is minimally intelligent, and I'll stand by that, but the emphasis is on minimal.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
3. Re:No need to be alarmed. by Eloking · 2018-02-13 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Do you distinguish between a robot and an automated tool?
  What's you're definition? I often see the term robot used in a context where telefactor would be more appropriate.
  What distinction do you make between a robot and a numerically controlled tool?
  To me a robot must have significant intelligence. Not just internal logic, but actual situational evaluation. Behavior that has been called "Sphexish" (like that of a particular wasp) doesn't qualify as intelligence, as it appears to be all preprogrammed responses to situational cues. (In another place I argue that this kind of thing is minimally intelligent, and I'll stand by that, but the emphasis is on minimal.)
  If a robot need to have significant intelligence (ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills) as you said, then robot haven't been created yet.
  If our field, we consider "Robot" machine that have been created to replace human manual labor independently (so an excavator isn't a robot). That also mean that, in my opinion, most android aren't robot.
  The best example of robot are "Industrial Robot" or "Robot Arm" and this article talk about those robot.
  
  --
  Elok
4. Re:No need to be alarmed. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, such robots have been created in academia. I suspect they are now in military labs, because despite huge success no new projects were developed in the open.
5. Re:No need to be alarmed. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  I'm wondering where you're located. You use some wierd and unusual words and your grammar is full of holes. Are you actually in the US? If so you're not originally from here.
6. Re:No need to be alarmed. by HiThere · 2018-02-13 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  So would you consider an autonomous fork-lift a robot?
  If I understand you correctly, the answer is yes. And also a self-driving car, even if it's legally required to carry an official "driver"?
  I think of those as actual robots, albeit primitive ones. And the robot car, at least, is required to have "actual situational evaluation". The fork-lift might not be except for things like bumper guards, which can be "pre-scripted", but only if it is restricted to operating in an extremely simplified environment. Say, a warehouse with lots of coded storage bins, and paths laid out along the floor for it to travel. So I don't consider a Roomba, at least as I've seen it described, as a robot. It's merely an automated vacuum cleaner. There are, however, reasonable arguments that it's at the very low end of actual robot, largely because the word doesn't seem well defined. It's definitely not just a telefactor, but I'd think of it as an automated cleaner rather than as a robot.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
7. Re:No need to be alarmed. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 05:05 · Score: 0
  
  Dude's French. Globalism = mondialisation in le french.
8. Re:No need to be alarmed. by Eloking · 2018-02-19 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Dude's French. Globalism = mondialisation in le french.
  Guilty as charged.
  Yes I am and I'm still learning.
  Don't hesitate to correct me! I want to get better.
  
  --
  Elok
It's the jobs that never materialize... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 08:36 · Score: 0

...that are the problem. Automation doesn't get rid of jobs we have, it means we don't need more people to do more work.
The population of humans continues to grow, but the work isn't there for them to do. Ergo, without massive redistribution of wealth from the wealthiest individuals with something like basic income, we end up with an ever-growing underclass of penniless and powerless.
1. Re:It's the jobs that never materialize... by Eloking · 2018-02-13 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  The population of humans continues to grow, but the work isn't there for them to do. Ergo, without massive redistribution of wealth from the wealthiest individuals with something like basic income, we end up with an ever-growing underclass of penniless and powerless.
  Tell that to the japanese. They population continue to decline years after years.
  Most western countrie population grow because of immigrantion. But if all the countries in the world were developped with a birth rate around 1.5, the world population will decline at an alarming rate.
  As for the basic income, it will eventually be needed since, historically, civil wars start when unemployment reach ~10%. But looking at the employment rate of the most automated countries, I think we have many decades ahead of us.
  
  --
  Elok
2. Re:It's the jobs that never materialize... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-13 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  If the people can't do the work, shouldn't they die out Darwin style?
  If you are so moralistic to say that they shouldn't, what do you think happens when they keep reproducing?
  You end up with a society of idiots. Is that what you want?
3. Re:It's the jobs that never materialize... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-14 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  If the people can't do the work, shouldn't they die out Darwin style?
  First off, that's pretty brutal and indicates you're a psychopath.
  Secondly, do you really think they'll just lay down and die? Remember when the Luddites rioted? There was about 5 years of rebellion and pseudo-terrorist acts.
  Thirdly, just because they can't do THAT job anymore doesn't mean they can't do ANY job any more. Transitions like that would be hard. Typically the older you are the harder it is. Even when the job goes away, the people are a resource that a nation needs to properly utilize one way or another.
  
  If you are so moralistic to say that they shouldn't, what do you think happens when they keep reproducing?
  They are not their children. Their children have just about as good of odds of being the next Einstein, or a geneticist, or an AI researcher, or an entrepreneur. Your children have just as good of odds as being a lazy layabout that just plays games and burns his daddy's money without a job.
  
  You end up with a society of idiots. Is that what you want?
  No, which is why we have public education. Duh.
Perl by garnser · 2018-02-14 07:27 · Score: 1

And I was happy to increase productivity by 50% with a 30-row perl-script, more code to the corporations.