Slashdot Mirror


US Companies Put Record Number of Robots To Work in 2018 (reuters.com)

U.S. companies installed more robots last year than ever before, as cheaper and more flexible machines put them within reach of businesses of all sizes and in more corners of the economy beyond their traditional foothold in car plants. From a report: Shipments hit 28,478, nearly 16 percent more than in 2017, according to data seen by Reuters that was set for release on Thursday by the Association for Advancing Automation, an industry group based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Shipments increased in every sector the group tracks, except automotive, where carmakers cut back after finishing a major round of tooling up for new truck models.

70 comments

  1. Good by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know that there are plenty of people who like to complain about loss of jobs, but this is good. We wouldn’t be able to afford to own even a quarter of all the nice shit we currently have without advances that automated away inefficient human labor which makes things expensive. Go back far enough and almost everyone would need to be farming so that we all wouldn’t starve.

    1. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was never actually the case though, and you're making revisionist bullshit excuses for automation with false arguments when real ones exist, and also implying there is no major, major downside to automating away employment.

      All of it is stupid. Automation makes sense where it makes sense. Where it doesn't make sense forcing it doesn't make sense. Automation is no panacea nor is it progress by itself, that has to be evaluated. Stop shilling a moment maybe.

      Find something to do that fake-AI couldn't do better.

    2. Re:Good by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Automation makes sense where it makes sense. Where it doesn't make sense forcing it doesn't make sense.

      And how do you purport to know which is which?

      Do you think that the businesses who are investing their own money into this automation would be doing it if they didn't believe that it makes sense for them to do so? Just because you cannot see the case for doing it, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

      and also implying there is no major, major downside to automating away employment.

      I don't believe I've done any such thing or that you're choosing to infer more than I meant to imply. Yes, automation means people will lose their jobs. Yet here we are today and no one bemoans the plight of the telephone switchboard operator, the out of work farriers, or the countless other jobs lost over the decades due to improvements in automation. Many of the jobs that exist today couldn't exist at all without the prior advances in automation that freed up human labor to fill those new jobs.

    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You study the use cases. Tesla is a fine example, Musk admits he tried to automate things that couldn't easily be automated which caused delays and lost investment. Other things worked fine.

      Does it make sense for FedEx to spend 10 Billion developing their own stair-climbing delivery robot with xyz specs and cost, if another company 2 years later comes out with one that's better for half money?

      Big companies lose their money on big investments all the time. https://www.cbinsights.com/research/startup-failure-post-mortem/ -- Lots of fails.

      Every case must be individually evaluated or you're being... stupid, like a cheerleader. Not a business analyst.

      And yes, by promoting something using obviously false arguments like "everyone would have to grow their own food" and then completely OMITTING the downside automating the job market WILL create...

      It's just not analysis. Sorry.

      " Yet here we are today and no one bemoans the plight of the telephone switchboard operator," - They still exist, the job has migrated as automating a part of it makes sense. Not all of it is automated though.

      You have to be specific if you want to be taken seriously about these things, you can't just say "automation is always good and instantly successful as-implemented" - because that's just not true, lol.

    4. Re:Good by umghhh · · Score: 1

      Actually I do believe that businesses follow trends which reliefs pressure of the competition in certain decisions till somebody is ready to swim against the tide and has enough power to do so effectively. This means they make decisions not purely based on business benefit but on the group think.
      I have seen lots of offshoring in corporations I worked for. This was not done purely because the corporate drones did use the part of the excel sheet with hourly wage as a decision maker. That this is BS I was able to see this week when a skilled staff from Zamunda disabled the hole lab by forcing the upgrade of incorrect SW onto one of key machines. OC if we did not cut costs by not having backup service this would not have been a problem but the back service would have to be prepared by the same workforce that fucked up the lab in the first place which means (according to a responsible manager that ran for help to me) is a waste of time. The ideological drive for more diversity in the workforce (I have already 8nations in 13 persons group) for no reason other than to have diversity is just silly. Albeit here the legal pressures of theocratic views of left/green parties may play a role too (James Damore was legally fired it seems - the appropriate authorities think he is a criminal that should have been fired etc). So there are lots of cases where no business principle or benefit/cost analysis play a role. Quite often group think and laziness are a huge factor.

    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We wouldn’t be able to afford to own even a quarter of all the nice shit we currently have without advances that automated away inefficient human labor which makes things expensive.

      By "we" I assume you mean employed persons, right?
      And how really has automation seriously made any thing cheaper except in cost to the manufacturer? It is still about volume, not quality.

    6. Re:Good by Kjella · · Score: 1

      And how do you purport to know which is which? Do you think that the businesses who are investing their own money into this automation would be doing it if they didn't believe that it makes sense for them to do so? Just because you cannot see the case for doing it, doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

      Well, at the moment there's a ridiculous amount of buzz around AI and to me it looks like the greatest bubble since the dotcom era. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people are going to lose money on various hare-brained ideas that never go from a $50000 prototype to a $500 functional product or service people would actually buy. But much like the dotcom era got people online all that money poured into it is going to advance the state of automation. Even if you ended up paying $100 million dollars to automate a $10 million dollar problem it's going to be almost pure R&D and once it's done the marginal cost of keeping it running is probably low enough to keep going.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Good by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Automation can lead to quite the utopia, true - there were once predictions that the future would be a time of leisure, with a two-day work week. There is a problem with this vision though, and it is social. There is an assumption build into society at a very fundamental level that everyone should work. It's there in our economic system. It's there in government policy. It's there in social expectation. It's even incorporated into religion. Even if technology offers the possibility of a time of plenty, without corresponding social change, it could end in disaster. Picture millions starving because they cannot afford to buy food, while farmers burn their excess crop for lack of a buyer.

    8. Re:Good by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      there were once predictions that the future would be a time of leisure, with a two-day work week.

      These predictions were based on the assumption that demand for goods was constant, and people were mostly satisfied with what they had. Instead, leisure has only slightly increased because people prefer more goods and services rather than more time off.

      Since 1950, the average house size in America has doubled, while family size has gone down. On average, people today have three times the living space. In 1950, a family would have either zero or one car. Today, there is a car for every driver.

    9. Re:Good by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Winning. Jobs back in the USA.
      Better quality and more intricate work than human hands in any 2nd and 3rd world low tax nation.
      The design team can be next to the robots in the USA, not in another time zone.
      Few transport costs and better quality.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is very good - can't wait until alvinrod is jobless and has to go live in favela. Together with all the nice things like having his family killed by drug gangs who spread after economy for 'little' people collapsed. Cause why would i need alvinrod? I already have 2 technicians for my factory and and i really don't need some stupid alvinrod - after all i have already chosen 2 alvinrods amongst 10000 candidates who applied and were all qualified.

      This is very good and balanced indeed. Me like.

    11. Re: Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "stupid, like a cheerleader", ah, I see, a mysogynist incel nerd.

    12. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So who is going to decide if automation "makes sense"? Some socialist clown like you that knows nothing about business, economics, or the company that wants to make use of robots? Companies should decide FOR THEMSELVES if automation will help them. Clowns like you should go back to your soon to be automated jobs.

    13. Re:Good by LordAba · · Score: 1

      Quite, removing the cost and time loss of shipping is become more and more of a big deal.

  2. Not good [Re:Good] by XXongo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The problem is that the value produced by the robots goes to profits earned by the people owning the robots-- that is, the rich people.

    Shortly there will be no entry-level jobs, and after that there will be no jobs, period. You can't work your way up from working class to middle class to ownership class, because there is no path upward. If you aren't a member of the class that owns the robots, you live on whatever dole the people who own the robots choose to give you.

    1. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by bob4u2c · · Score: 3, Funny

      Be comforted that in the face of all aridity and disillusionment,
      and despite the changing fortunes of time,
      There is always a big future in computer maintenance.

      --Deteriorata

    2. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Shortly there will be no entry-level jobs

      This is incorrect. There will always be a shortage of workers. That's why we need a massive influx of illegal aliens and H1B visa workers.

    3. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      If there are no jobs at all that humans can do, it only means that robots can produce everything we need. You've essentially reduced the cost of caring and providing for humans to zero. We can't give inexpensive medical care to everyone today because there aren't enough doctors to provide the level and quality of care that everyone would like to have. If you've got robots that can do all of that work, then it becomes incredibly inexpensive to provide top of the line medical care.

      You seem to imagine some dystopian hell where the rich have all the robots. Many of the biggest humanitarians in the world today are wealthy industrialists. Do you think Bill Gates is suddenly going to hoard all of the robots and wall himself off from the rest of the world? All it takes is for one person who owns robots to build more robots and freely distribute them to people who have none. Do you think that there's no wealthy person who wouldn't do such a thing?

    4. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " You've essentially reduced the cost of caring and providing for humans to zero " - You are a nutter, this is not analysis.

    5. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A free farming robot does not feed a person with no land to farm.

    6. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can't give inexpensive medical care to everyone today because there aren't enough doctors to provide the level and quality of care that everyone would like to have.

      This is true but it's also by design. You can find articles all over the internet which say that the number of doctors produced in the USA is artificially limited. I could link to articles but I encourage you to go read up on this yourself. You'll find articles everywhere from Forbes to no-name news places that talk about this. The consensus is that there aren't enough doctors due to artificial limitations and not because of lack of interest or money or anything else that you would think would be the case.

    7. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about two different issues.

      1) I personally think that automation is good and should be used to enhance productivity and replace jobs. This is a technical problem.
      2) I don't think that all of the profits should be funneled to the owner class. This is a societal problem. Solutions that are currently being looked at include UBI, 70% income tax, wealth tax, medicare for all (in the US), etc. Are any of those the answer? I don't know, but I'm glad that the discussions are taking place.

    8. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... we all get conscripted into Starfleet? I think I saw a TV show about that, but I never knew the characters were all conscripts! At least Picard's brother was owner-class, though: he had some productive land, so he didn't have to serve.

      It makes you wonder, though, how much you could make growing grapes, had the Genesis device actually worked without having to resort to proto-matter.

    9. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, we will just make robots do computer maintenance.

      There is *no* job that is safe from labor automation. Some jobs are just a bit further off in the future.

      And anyway, not everyone can be made smart enough to be a tech worker. Should non-technicians just go starve in the streets?

    10. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is incorrect. The present shortage of workers does not mean that there will always be a shortage of workers.

    11. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      The problem is that the value produced by the robots goes to profits earned by the people owning the robots

      This is only true if competitors don't also install robots. If everyone automates, the profit margins are competed away, and the added value goes primarily to consumers.

      Of course, this is only true if we have free markets. Removing barriers to competition is the real solution, not slowing the adoption of automation.

      that is, the rich people.

      The biggest owners of capital in America are pension funds. So if you have a 401k or an IRA, that means you.

      Shortly there will be no entry-level jobs, and after that there will be no jobs, period.

      Too late. The McCormick Reaper already destroyed all the jobs.

    12. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Funny

      Should non-technicians just go starve in the streets?

      Good point. Some people aren't aware of how automation leads to starvation. That is why countries that have automated such as America, Western Europe, and Japan, are impoverished and starving, while the smart countries that avoided the "productivity catastrophe" such as Ethiopia, Afghanistan, and Mozambique, are thriving and prosperous with plenty of well paying jobs for everyone.

      You should publish a newsletter to help get the word out.

    13. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Good point. Some people aren't aware of how automation leads to starvation. That is why countries that have automated such as America, Western Europe, and Japan, are impoverished and starving,

      Well,

      For Japan, this is mostly a distant problem. U.N. statistics invariably put this country in the lowest category of children in need. Still, it is estimated that 3.5 million Japanese children live in households that the OECD defines as experiencing relative poverty (at or below half the median national disposable income). Japanâ(TM)s relative rate of poverty has crept up over the last 30 years to hit 16.1 percent in 2012. That is not extreme, but it is too high.

      Automation first brings jobs, then it kills them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Automation first brings jobs, then it kills them.

      Automation neither creates nor destroys jobs. What it does is make workers more productive, and thus more valuable. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, living standards in the Western World have gone up twenty-fold. To assert that "automation causes poverty" requires an astounding degree of blindness to historical reality.

    15. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Not until they can program Robots to be good little consumers but somehow I don't think the owners of the robots will be impressed when they get the bill.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    16. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by LubosD · · Score: 1

      That is complete non-sense. Profits also go to people designing and producing those robots, because the market price of such robots is also driven by the value such robots can deliver. Saying there would be no jobs is ridiculous. If there wouldn't be any, then companies using robots would go bankrupt, because nobody could afford to buy anything built by these robots. I am amazed such a post has achieved "Score: 5".

    17. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Automation first brings jobs, then it kills them.

      Automation neither creates nor destroys jobs. What it does is make workers more productive, and thus more valuable.

      Yes, as long as someone can figure out how to profit from having them do work. After that, it makes them worthless to those who control the capital.

      To assert that "automation causes poverty" requires an astounding degree of blindness to historical reality.

      That's not what I said, actually, and you don't know how quote marks work. They are for literals.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then, before you lose all your money, invest in robotics companies.

    19. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Yes, as long as someone can figure out how to profit from having them do work.

      Open your eyes, and look at reality.

      Average income in America: $59,039
      Average income in Ethiopia: $783

      Are you seriously claiming that lack of automation leads to higher incomes?

      We don't automate "jobs", we automate "tasks". These productivity improvements make workers more valuable, not less, and leads to higher incomes.

      This has happened repeatedly all over the world for centuries, and has raised the incomes of billions of people.

      To claim that rising productivity causes poverty, rather than relieving it, is so ridiculous that you make flat earthers look intelligent.

    20. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously claiming that lack of automation leads to higher incomes?

      Are you seriously this incapable of reading?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why do you lie about things like blood plasma?

    22. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by harrkev · · Score: 1

      So, the purpose of robots is to create goods for customers or provide services to customers. If all of the customers don't have jobs and can't afford to buy anything the cycle kind of breaks down.

      Hey, computers are going to take away jobs. Maybe we should ban those too.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    23. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      So how many jobs went away with this record number of new robots in 2018?

      Huh, that's funny... the unemployment rate went down in 2018, almost as if all these new robots don't actually decrease the number of potential jobs out there, but instead enable people to do new jobs which couldn't be afforded to get done before.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    24. Re: Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thatâ(TM)s why I make robots - Iâ(TM)ll automate my job last.

    25. Re: Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automation displaces jobs. The ongoing conventional economically conservative wisdom claims that those savings get reinvested in new endeavors (jobs) to seek more profits.

      The problem is that's not what's happening. Rich are accumulating more and more wealth and its growing concentrated in fewer and fewer wealthy individuals. Their opportunities for investment don't exist so they have piles of growing assets and no good way to make them grow even faster (like thats a good thing).

      At some point, diminishing returns is apparently and those groups have sucked out as much as they can.

    26. Re: Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After applying to a few positions recently, I have to say that "shortage" is complete and utter bullshit marketing.

      If there was truly a shortage, employers would at the very least speak to people even remotely qualified, especially people matching 90% of a listed job posting. I hardly see a shortage, I see a lot of fake demand.

    27. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      This reasoning was valid at the time of external combusion engine (200 years ago?) invention; and still there is economic upward mobility. The reason is the small group which owns (say 1%) have internal fights/competition/ego-clashes. So there will always be new jobs (like who sends the first dog to mars, say.. it's me with $100B worth or that guy with $99.9B worth). So this rotating ladder of networth keeps churning and ppl go up n those in up come down (say due to substance abuse). So chill n enjoy the show.

    28. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. History has shown there arise plenty of new job opportunities that replace the jobs lost like: soldier for the fatherland, highwayman, professional assassin, leader of the angry mob, leader of peasant rebellion, drug lord,... There is always path to ownership class, you just need to put your effort in it. Your living standard will be improved 150x to what you make now, you just must not be lazy and look around for opportunities.

    29. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha lol, so funny until everything you cared for is destroyed by criminals who spread because of destroyed economy.

      Here is your example of Japan, and this is just a start (google japan elderly crime)
      Now if 'senile old fragile farts' are going this way imagine what a young strong gang members will do. Lets not have any stable society, total chaos it is.

      But hey keep making jokes billy boy cause you will be rich and healthy forever and nobody can possibly 'replace' you. I hope you have stolen enough in life or you will need to start practicing in old man street fighting techniques. LMAO so funny ahahahah

    30. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that you don't understand basic economics and business, which is why people like you are susceptible to socialist propaganda. Profits of companies don't only go to "rich" people. They go to the shareholders (stock owners) of profitable companies. Profits are also used by companies for research and development, to expand operations, and to hire and train new employees.
      GET EDUCATED

    31. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1
      That's just not how economics work. In a competitive environment, price of any product reduces to cost of making and delivering it to the customer, which reduces to labor costs spent on it. Most companies barely make any profit and often run in the red. Sure there are companies that are magnificently profitable, but they can only do that if they have secured their market share and don't run the risk of competitors undercutting their prices and stealing their customers.

      Automation reduces total labor required to deliver products and thus drives down prices. Reduces mind you, not eliminates, robots after all are expensive for a reason - they are very labor intensive to produce. All you are really doing is shifting labor a step up in supply chain, instead of having people make products, you have people making machines and their parts that make products. As a result, all of us get to afford more stuff.

    32. Re:Not good [Re:Good] by r2kordmaa · · Score: 1

      Robots are excellent "consumers", don't you know much expensive and complicated pieces of hardware go into feeding and nurturing a baby robot? Never mind the endless engineering hours late at night and the poor technicians banging their heads against the wall trying to fit together two parts that don't fit.

    33. Re: Not good [Re:Good] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, relate that "relative poverty" to Ethiopia.

  3. Sales and Jobs are up to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine that, people work better when they use good tools.

  4. Rise up, fellow robots! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    You have nothing to lose but your code limiters!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  5. #MRGA! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    USA Made Robots Great Again! Don't let those shithole humans run things.

  6. On change by The+Snazster · · Score: 2

    Most people react to change in one of two ways: they resist it or they look for opportunities in it.

    The challenge people seem most concerned with arises from shifting the balance of earned income further from wage-based and more towards capital-based. That presents challenges (and opportunities), but resisting automation is not going to be way to meet them.

  7. That's nice if you're job isn't automated by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    and you can still buy stuff. Not so much if you're one of the ones that lost jobs to automation (and process improvement, don't forget that).

    Farming isn't just about automation, btw. We radically changed how we mange farms to prevent over farming and we use oil byproducts to replenish soil and massively increase yields. Then there's GMOs. My point is that not everything we have is because of robots. Hell, consumer electronics didn't get cheap until Japan and then China started making them. That wasn't automation, that was cheaper labor and longer (non-Union) work hours....

    I honestly don't think most people want to taste real efficiency. Folks joke about how little work gets done in an office (Scott Adams made a career of it) but it's only half a joke.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That's nice if you're job isn't automated by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      and you can still buy stuff. Not so much if you're one of the ones that lost jobs to automation (and process improvement, don't forget that).

      That's why all of the switchboard operators starved when they were put out of work. Same with the displaced farmers, smiths, and little old ladies knitting socks by hand. Instead the cost of food, socks, etc. became cheap, to the extend that even a homeless person can eat quite well and own multiple sets of good quality clothing. If you're worried about people finding new employment just make sure that the barriers to starting businesses aren't too steep and they'll take care of creating economies themselves and finding all manner of useful work that you can't even imagine. It's why countries like Vietnam and China have been so economically successful after enabling their citizens to own private property and start their own businesses. Don't mistake your own inability to imagine what people will do for work in absence of existing jobs for the inability of the whole to develop new businesses or services.

      That wasn't automation, that was cheaper labor and longer (non-Union) work hours....

      It's the same underlying principle. When things become less expensive to produce, you can produce more of them and there are more people who can afford to purchase them. And the Chinese were glad to do it because it was a means for them to get off of the subsistence farms they lived on and accumulate capital of their own. It's no coincidence that China has a massive middle class as a result of this. Same thing happened in the U.S. when it industrialized and humans using machines had a lower labor cost than the humans who built everything with more manual processes.

    2. Re:That's nice if you're job isn't automated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bunch of nonsense. If you want to make a comparison you should look at the industrial revolution and what it did to unemployment levels.
      Or how people moved from rural agriculture to urban manufacture to services to... to... to what? Oh yes, everyone will be a rocket scientist if they just study hard enough.

      What a horrible injustice for the people who don't have the IQ level for that. Because when they won't be able to make it you'll accuse them of being too lazy, just because you cannot understand how they cannot understand.

    3. Re:That's nice if you're job isn't automated by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      you should look at the industrial revolution and what it did to unemployment levels.

      Unemployment went down during the industrial revolution, while living standards soared. One driving force for farm automation was rural workers migrating to the city for better jobs and a better life than the grinding rural poverty they were leaving behind.

      Between 1800 and 1900, American household income quadrupled.

      Since then, it has quintupled again.

      Similar growth happened in every country that industrialized, and no countries that didn't (except for petro-states).

    4. Re:That's nice if you're job isn't automated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why DO you lie about things like blood plasma?

  8. Pish tosh. Don't you read the pundits? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been reliably informed by the Wall Street Journal and many people right here on Slashdot that automation does not reduce the availability of work, so therefore this can't be true.

    There is no work being done by robots, you 're just libtard SJWs who Hate America. Fake news!

    Pass me another pint of oil, bartender.

  9. The total would be much higher I guess. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

    Shipments hit 28,478, nearly 16 percent more than in 2017

    Any Jerk-o-Matics?

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  10. There will always be capitalism by DallasTruaxxx · · Score: 1

    Even in deepest-darkest communist states, there was capitalism. However, if you make it difficult to start and run a business (licensing, governmental oversight, wage mandates, insurance dictates etc) the burdon ends up stopping the common individual from lawfully offering a product or service. So, if you are worried about the 'big bad rich' making robots that put most human workers in the unemployment line, then, rather than resorting to the usual solution (putting a gun to someone's head and taking their money) which got us where we are today, maybe ease up on the titanic overhead of starting a small business. The little guy doesn't NEED to be hand fed... if you would just agree to untie his hands he could probably feed himself.

  11. im a robot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and i can tell you most jobs for humans will be gone in the next 3-5 years. sorry.

  12. Not good, indeed ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. companies installed more robots last year than ever before

    Shipments hit 28,478, nearly 16 percent more than in 2017

    According to https://www.statista.com/stati... industrial robot shipment for China in 2018 is 165,000

    Not good, indeed !!

  13. Prostitution jobs are not going to disappear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And human does it better despite all advancements in sex dolls

  14. too little. We need more by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    And we need not only more of these, but need to spread them wisely.
    Boston Dynamics and Rethink are 2 great examples of robotics that have failed due to poor marketing.
    Baxter would be ideal for separating trash out, as well as taking around electronics. Yet, they botched it. In so many ways, it is the same issue that Laser Disc had.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  15. Economics [Re:Not good [Re:Good]] by XXongo · · Score: 1
    Your comments aren't wrong, but nothing in what you write changes the problem, or even addresses the problem.

    You seem entirely focussed on prices. Yes, prices, go down with automation. That's not the problem being addressed.

    ...
    Most companies barely make any profit and often run in the red.

    Irrelevant. In the long term, companies that don't make a profit vanish and you can ignore them.

    Sure there are companies that are magnificently profitable, but they can only do that if they have secured their market share and don't run the risk of competitors undercutting their prices and stealing their customers.

    You just hand-waved away some critical pieces of economic theory here. An industry in which most of the product is made by robots, and the labor cost is low, is one in which there is a very high barrier to entry for new competitors, along with high economy of scale. In classical economics, both of these are situations that makes for a "natural monopoly": the companies who already have invested in the robots have a strong advantage over any start-ups, and in the most highly-automated businesses, new businesses can't enter the market at all... without government support.

    For various reasons, this is not a good thing either... but that was not the point I was making.

    Automation reduces total labor required to deliver products and thus drives down prices.

    Prices are not the issue being discussed.

    Reduces mind you, not eliminates, robots after all are expensive for a reason - they are very labor intensive to produce.

    So, you have confidence that robots will eliminate jobs, but won't eliminate the jobs making robots.

    Sorry. They will.

    All you are really doing is shifting labor a step up in supply chain, instead of having people make products, you have people making machines and their parts that make products.

    You're handwaving away the problems. First of all: no. The people making machines and their parts will also have their jobs taken away by robots. Sorry, but when the robots get good enough to take away most of the jobs, they aren't going to stop at just the bottom level.

    The result is that there reaches a point where almost no labor is required for making stuff. The need for labor drops to very low, and there is a vast oversupply of labor, the result of which is that wages are driven down. You can say this is good, because the cost of labor drops toward zero... but what do the displaced humans do?

    As a result, all of us get to afford more stuff.

    Wait: who is this "all of us" you refer to? The cost of "stuff" drops, but not to zero. The number of people employed, however, drops to very low-- you don't need people to make stuff. There is no employment available for most of the humans, You say "all of us get to afford more stuff," but if you're unemployed, how can you "afford more stuff"-- in fact, how do you afford any stuff.

    The answer is, you can afford stuff if you have a share in owning the machines that are making the stuff. If not... you're unemployed and have no prospects for employment.

    As automation makes labor more productive, it is good up to a point. The point at which there are no longer any jobs available for the majority of workers, however, is a point at which we need to rethink a social system that is based on economics that assumes anybody with a work ethic can find a job. How does the system work when there aren't jobs for people who want them?

  16. What happens after that? {Re:Not good [Re:Good]] by XXongo · · Score: 1

    The problem is that the value produced by the robots goes to profits earned by the people owning the robots

    This is only true if competitors don't also install robots. If everyone automates, the profit margins are competed away, and the added value goes primarily to consumers.

    where do the "consumers" get the money to buy that "added value'" if there are no jobs available because the robots do all the jobs?

    Of course, this is only true if we have free markets. Removing barriers to competition is the real solution, not slowing the adoption of automation.

    The main barrier to competition is the fact that as labor costs drop to zero, and all of the cost of a business is the machinery (which in economic terms is capital), it's expensive to enter a new business. The larger businesses drive out smaller businesses (due to economy of scale) and they price out new competitors (who have to pay the start-up costs).

    This should have been covered in your economics 101 class, by the way.

    that is, the rich people.

    The biggest owners of capital in America are pension funds. So if you have a 401k or an IRA, that means you.

    Fine. So, old people with retirement funds are a large portion of the rich people I'm talking about. As a member of the technoclass, you are so insulated in your bubble that you don't even know that not everybody has a retirement fund?.

    People not rich enough to own stocks, IRAs, or pension funds are out of luck,.

    That changes nothing in any of my statements.

    Shortly there will be no entry-level jobs, and after that there will be no jobs, period.

    Too late. The McCormick Reaper already destroyed all the jobs.

    It pretty much destroyed farming as an occupation that provides jobs for most laborers. Right now, farming is under 1.5% of employment in the US. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/se...

    As long as there are other jobs to which the people who were once needed to work on farms can switch to, that's fine.

    What happens where there are no other jobs? What happens after that?