Manufacturing Jobs Aren’t Coming Back(technologyreview.com)
technologyreview.com
Manufacturing Jobs Aren’t Coming Back
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602869/manufacturing-jobs-arent-coming-back/
109 comments
Yup. This is what I was just arguing with my family about-they voted Trump because they want manufacturing jobs back. I pointed out that if the US imposes trade tariff's high enough to make manufacturing things like steel cost effective again in the US the people that build the plants will simply put in these kinds of robots-not people. Robots work Saturday and Sunday for the same cost as a week day and with far less bitching.
It is my feeling that at least some of the anger being expressed isn't so much about jobs being displaced by robots today or in the near future, although these are serious concerns as well, but instead the steady hollowing out of these manufacturing jobs through offshoring over a period of 20-30 years were the overwhelming financial benefits have gone to a very small portion of the American population, namely those occupying high positions within multinational corporations.
Arguably the overwhelming benefits have gone to a very large portion of the American population, so large that it's hard for individuals to trace and see. Think of the cascade of effects of all these manufacturing outputs being created more efficiently/cheaply, which in turn are inputs to other products, and the opportunity savings of which flow into other endeavors all around us.
However, I do generally agree with your diagnosis that the anger isn't so much about automation per se, as about changes in post-war economic structures finally starting to reach some tipping point, whether perceived rightly or not.
However, I do generally agree with your diagnosis that the anger isn't so much about automation per se, as about changes in post-war economic structures finally starting to reach some tipping point, whether perceived rightly or not.
The cascade of effects means that people can afford massive flat-screen TVs, but not houses to put them in. This is much worse than the reverse but looks good when you abstract the details away through statistics like inflation.
Do you have any data for that position?
Wage growth for example has been flat overall:
https://frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker/?panel=1
Half of Americans make under 30k a year:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-...
Yet the cost of goods has been increasing steadily:
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-infla...
Wage growth for example has been flat overall:
https://frbatlanta.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker/?panel=1
Half of Americans make under 30k a year:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-...
Yet the cost of goods has been increasing steadily:
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-infla...
I guess it will be hard to link such things causally to automation, specifically. I'm not an economist, but just speaking from the consensus that improvements to efficiency in the allocation of scarce capital should make everyone better off in a liberal economy (and even illiberal ones). Perhaps zooming out from the US to the whole world, it's more apparent that vast swathes of humanity have been lifted up in part by things like automation and freer trade.
I suppose the US's experience is not typical of the world's... after ww2, the US alone was something greater than 50% of global gdp, and its manufacturing base equally huge in comparison. Life is good when you are so far on top, even for the common worker, who with minimal education and no experience could find a job that supported an owned home, a homemaking wife, kids, a car, and two vacations a year. A couple of decades of that, and it starts to seem normal. But it was always abnormal, a result of fortunate post-war circumstances, and now that the rest of the world is catching up, perhaps we are returning to normality.
I suppose the US's experience is not typical of the world's... after ww2, the US alone was something greater than 50% of global gdp, and its manufacturing base equally huge in comparison. Life is good when you are so far on top, even for the common worker, who with minimal education and no experience could find a job that supported an owned home, a homemaking wife, kids, a car, and two vacations a year. A couple of decades of that, and it starts to seem normal. But it was always abnormal, a result of fortunate post-war circumstances, and now that the rest of the world is catching up, perhaps we are returning to normality.
Wage growth has been flat because compensation has shifted from wages to benefits. Real compensation per hour has done nothing but increase.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPRNFB
98 dollars in 2004 to 105 dollars now is a downward trend once you factor inflation.
The data I cited already takes inflation into account. You can tell from the word "real" in the title of the series.
My mistake. Still how much of this growth is hitting the poor and middle class as opposed to executives? My data excludes salaries above 100k.
The facts do not seem to support that. Domestic output has steadily increased, ergo offshoring is not causing job loss.
Is a US factory with a lot of robots better than an foreign factory with people paid less than $8/hour? The rise of the robots is being held back by cheap humans.
> trade tariff's high enough to make manufacturing things like steel cost effective again in the US
Nota: steel is cost-effective in the US given a modern (and automated) enough plant. As of 2015 the US are the #4 largest steel producer in the word[0], #2 being Japan (the top 10 is China, Japan, India, USA, Russia, South Korea, Germany, Brazil, Turkey, Ukraine). Though part of that may be existing tariffs (US steel production is mostly internal, it's the #11 exporter and #1 net importer of steel)
Global steel employment has fallen like a brick since its heydays, even China's rise in steel jobs and production since the augths haven't compensated for the jobs lost to automation and efficiency increases (at mostly constant production outside of China).
[0] country-specific, excluding the EU block
Nota: steel is cost-effective in the US given a modern (and automated) enough plant. As of 2015 the US are the #4 largest steel producer in the word[0], #2 being Japan (the top 10 is China, Japan, India, USA, Russia, South Korea, Germany, Brazil, Turkey, Ukraine). Though part of that may be existing tariffs (US steel production is mostly internal, it's the #11 exporter and #1 net importer of steel)
Global steel employment has fallen like a brick since its heydays, even China's rise in steel jobs and production since the augths haven't compensated for the jobs lost to automation and efficiency increases (at mostly constant production outside of China).
[0] country-specific, excluding the EU block
Steel is expensive to move around. Making it where it's needed is a good idea. The same isn't true of most products.
If you don't move the steel, you have to move the iron ore, so I think there is not too much difference in cost unless you place the steel mill just between the iron mine and the use site.
(You also need a lot of coal, but you can produce it locally if you have enough room to plant a big forest nearby.)
(You also need a lot of coal, but you can produce it locally if you have enough room to plant a big forest nearby.)
And steel will be lighter than the corresponding weight of ore and coal.
If you have iron mine nearby your steel plant, and both are located where steel is needed, it's good.
When you have to move iron around, you'd calculate how much it costs you to move the iron vs steel, since steel would have more value. Or if would be better to produce a car and move the car...
When you have to move iron around, you'd calculate how much it costs you to move the iron vs steel, since steel would have more value. Or if would be better to produce a car and move the car...
Another point I've seen made is that capital costs are cheaper than ever, so automation can be financed at almost no cost.
So higher tariffs will be a boon on robot-makers, not necessarily the working-class people that expected to take those jobs.
So higher tariffs will be a boon on robot-makers, not necessarily the working-class people that expected to take those jobs.
That doesn't make it inevitable. We could create regulations about when and what automation is acceptable.
That reality seems more likely to me in the present climate than a maybe more ideal solution like basic income - though I think the most likely outcome is huge (and increasing) swaths of the population languishing in permanent poverty.
That reality seems more likely to me in the present climate than a maybe more ideal solution like basic income - though I think the most likely outcome is huge (and increasing) swaths of the population languishing in permanent poverty.
Assume, hypothetically, that the rich use robots and form their own economy and wall themselves off from the rest. Why can't the remaining people form a non-automated economy amongst themselves?
Economically, it's equivalent to those rich people and their robots just not existing at all and their estates being filled with impassible mountains.
Economically, it's equivalent to those rich people and their robots just not existing at all and their estates being filled with impassible mountains.
The messy reality getting in the way of your hypothetical is that the rich have walls around an awful lot of the most useful resources.
It is equivalent to one of those films where the poor have to live on earth in relative poverty while the rich live in a base in orbit that sustains itself and is basically heaven.
Do you believe the "not rich" wouldn't want to cross the wall?
Do you believe the "not rich" wouldn't want to cross the wall?
But why can't the people living on earth create their own functional economy?
In Elysium (the movie you are referring to) the answer is clear: Earth is full of sick children, Mexicans and lovable criminals. For reasons I didn't quite understand, those Mexicans are unable to build a functioning economy (perhaps because the lovable criminals cause too many problems).
Do you believe that this is an accurate reflection of reality, namely that the non-rich can't organize themselves into a livable society without the aid of the rich?
In Elysium (the movie you are referring to) the answer is clear: Earth is full of sick children, Mexicans and lovable criminals. For reasons I didn't quite understand, those Mexicans are unable to build a functioning economy (perhaps because the lovable criminals cause too many problems).
Do you believe that this is an accurate reflection of reality, namely that the non-rich can't organize themselves into a livable society without the aid of the rich?
Did you overlook the stifling, robotically enforced social control in Elysium?
Why didn't the people on Earth start their own farms? Because the robots came and killed them if they tried.
Why didn't the people on Earth start their own farms? Because the robots came and killed them if they tried.
I watched the movie on an airplane many years ago. I vaguely remember Matt Damon working in a robot factory and having a robot parole officer. I think robot bodyguards also protected Willem Dafoe.
I don't recall robots preventing people from starting farms or providing medical care to the sick children, and that's missing from the wikipedia summary of the movie. Why would they do that? How would it benefit the space station to prevent earthers from building a functioning society?
I don't recall robots preventing people from starting farms or providing medical care to the sick children, and that's missing from the wikipedia summary of the movie. Why would they do that? How would it benefit the space station to prevent earthers from building a functioning society?
Yeah, I haven't watched it recently either. But the social control is certainly implied (and the script was messy enough without spending 1/2 hour really spelling it out).
The social control might be present in the movie, but in reality it mostly doesn't exist.
In reality we generally just ignore our low productivity areas, and perhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere. The NYC and SF elites occasionally try to feel good by pointless throwing $100M at local problems that money can't fix [1], but mostly they ignore Newark. The Mumbai elite don't impose social control on the rural hinterlands, they just don't go there.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-failed-100-m...
In reality we generally just ignore our low productivity areas, and perhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere. The NYC and SF elites occasionally try to feel good by pointless throwing $100M at local problems that money can't fix [1], but mostly they ignore Newark. The Mumbai elite don't impose social control on the rural hinterlands, they just don't go there.
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-failed-100-m...
perhaps make sure the folks from there can't cause problems elsewhere
This is wandering dangerously close to the definition of social control. It might be efficient, disinterested social control, but it's control nonetheless.
This is wandering dangerously close to the definition of social control. It might be efficient, disinterested social control, but it's control nonetheless.
It's social control to ensure that people from Newark act according to NYC behavioral standards when they take the PATH in?
In any case, this is very different from what you postulated happened:
Why didn't the people on [Newark] start their own farms? Because the [NYPD] came and killed them if they tried.
In any case, this is very different from what you postulated happened:
Why didn't the people on [Newark] start their own farms? Because the [NYPD] came and killed them if they tried.
NYPD doesn't have cheap robots yet, so it's hard to say what New York elites would do given the chance (and some time to convince themselves that what they were doing was just).
But I agree, your scenario doesn't match up well with my interpretation of the movie.
But I agree, your scenario doesn't match up well with my interpretation of the movie.
Usually the rich people own the resources and charge the poor to use them. It's pretty hard to make an economy without fuels, mines, farmland or even water.
I think you forget that many such situations already exist on earth.
Tell me why the farmers in north korea can't just start a functional economy?
Or african refugees that pile up on italian islands?
Why is america walled off? Literally towards the south and figuratively towards the rest of the world? Why is america so afraid that I may actually contribute to society that they can't allow me to type out a single line of code while I'm on their continent?
Why is china wrapping all their seaside cities into special economic interest zones while a billion farmers have to be subjected to quasi stalinist idiocy?
Why are mexicans trying to enter the US? It surely cant be that difficult to start a reasonable economy on their own terms?
Why did the east germans try to jump the wall? East Germany was shit by comparison, but it certainly wasn't compared to other parts of the world?
The people in Elysium depended on earths resources. They turned all earthers into de facto slaves. This may be a bit of a stretch compared to reality, but in principle, it is what we are doing all around the world.
You wake up, drink your gluten free soylent, take a shower, sit down and begin to type words into a computer that literally change the world. They will be deployed on machines you've never seen and maybe don't fully understand, but in doing so you can take important jobs away that feed families, build spacecraft that will colonize mars, etc.
Your instacart delivery will pop up around 2pm. You call an uber to get to the gym because you would turn fat if you didnt regularly exercise. You spend an hour in the bathroom to groom your hipster beard and then head out to have an ironic pabst with all your hipster friends who live similar lifestyles.
And you didn't even realize how many people you virtually ran over that day.
Maybe not you, but that could be a typical day in the life of your average hackernewser.
Do you really think you have all that much in common with a Louisiana coal miner who fears for the well-being of his family? We may as well be aliens to them.
We are already walled off. We are masters over the machines. They are not. We have already "won". People are free to enter our society, we won't judge, but all those people out there who voted trump because they're scared of US are real. People who drink pabst because they can't AFFORD non-ironic brands of beer.
Its not that the poor can't organize themselves. Maybe they can't, I don't know - but throughout history, the poor were usually oppressed into varying forms of slavery.
In the US, for example, the womb you pop out of decides whether you're going to public school or real school. Maybe in principle, these people have a fair shot at social mobility, but what if modern society requires a level of education that they just never had a chance of achieving? I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
Tell me why the farmers in north korea can't just start a functional economy?
Or african refugees that pile up on italian islands?
Why is america walled off? Literally towards the south and figuratively towards the rest of the world? Why is america so afraid that I may actually contribute to society that they can't allow me to type out a single line of code while I'm on their continent?
Why is china wrapping all their seaside cities into special economic interest zones while a billion farmers have to be subjected to quasi stalinist idiocy?
Why are mexicans trying to enter the US? It surely cant be that difficult to start a reasonable economy on their own terms?
Why did the east germans try to jump the wall? East Germany was shit by comparison, but it certainly wasn't compared to other parts of the world?
The people in Elysium depended on earths resources. They turned all earthers into de facto slaves. This may be a bit of a stretch compared to reality, but in principle, it is what we are doing all around the world.
You wake up, drink your gluten free soylent, take a shower, sit down and begin to type words into a computer that literally change the world. They will be deployed on machines you've never seen and maybe don't fully understand, but in doing so you can take important jobs away that feed families, build spacecraft that will colonize mars, etc.
Your instacart delivery will pop up around 2pm. You call an uber to get to the gym because you would turn fat if you didnt regularly exercise. You spend an hour in the bathroom to groom your hipster beard and then head out to have an ironic pabst with all your hipster friends who live similar lifestyles.
And you didn't even realize how many people you virtually ran over that day.
Maybe not you, but that could be a typical day in the life of your average hackernewser.
Do you really think you have all that much in common with a Louisiana coal miner who fears for the well-being of his family? We may as well be aliens to them.
We are already walled off. We are masters over the machines. They are not. We have already "won". People are free to enter our society, we won't judge, but all those people out there who voted trump because they're scared of US are real. People who drink pabst because they can't AFFORD non-ironic brands of beer.
Its not that the poor can't organize themselves. Maybe they can't, I don't know - but throughout history, the poor were usually oppressed into varying forms of slavery.
In the US, for example, the womb you pop out of decides whether you're going to public school or real school. Maybe in principle, these people have a fair shot at social mobility, but what if modern society requires a level of education that they just never had a chance of achieving? I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
The remaining people can try to create an economy around the resources that aren't also walled off and guarded by robots.
The more inequality we have the less of a problem this is. More inequality => fewer elites => less resources used.
Once the elites have ascended, they have no reason to care much about pesky non-elites using resources outside their enclaves. Observe how little effort contemporary humans put into keeping monkeys from enjoying monkey resources.
Once the elites have ascended, they have no reason to care much about pesky non-elites using resources outside their enclaves. Observe how little effort contemporary humans put into keeping monkeys from enjoying monkey resources.
Contemporary humans are driving many monkey species to the point of extinction, so that example really doesn't help your point. It turns out that replacing monkey resources with stuff like farms to feed humans is very profitable.
Yes, that's a problem with having large numbers of humans - they crowd out the monkeys.
Recall that we are discussing a high inequality situation where a tiny fraction of humanity walls itself off into robot enclaves where they satisfy their own needs without human labor. I.e., not enough people to crowd out anything.
Recall that we are discussing a high inequality situation where a tiny fraction of humanity walls itself off into robot enclaves where they satisfy their own needs without human labor. I.e., not enough people to crowd out anything.
A small population needs a relatively small amount of resources to feed and physically sustain itself, but the amount of resources needed to build and feed an ever-growing population of robots is virtually unbounded. As computers get smaller and more efficient, data centers get larger and more power-hungry, for example.
> though I think the most likely outcome is huge (and increasing) swaths of the population languishing in permanent poverty
I don't think so. You cannot only outsource manufacturing labor to robots. You can do with policing as well. So you don't have to worry for uprisings. These people will simply starve or being killed by robots.
I don't think so. You cannot only outsource manufacturing labor to robots. You can do with policing as well. So you don't have to worry for uprisings. These people will simply starve or being killed by robots.
Robotization is coming, eg Telsa, but it doesn't mean the trade deals are 'fair/free trade'.
China is a currency manipulator for example, which is well known, but I learned it in the free documentary 'Death by China'
China is a currency manipulator for example, which is well known, but I learned it in the free documentary 'Death by China'
A family member that works with industrial assembly lines purchased one, and it has been a huge boon for him, especially since he doesn't have to subcontract a welder so much.
He does need a person to watch over the robot for theft and most especially sabotage, but even then, it's much cheaper than a trained welder (and welds more cleanly).
The construction syndicate here in Uruguay is very big and very radicalized, making construction costs ridiculously expensive compared to average wages, I fear for the first person to bring the bricklaying robot here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a22082/wat...
Edit: the robot I'm talking about is a robotic orbital welder, something like this one:
https://www.robots.com/articles/viewing/a-round-the-edge-orb...
He does need a person to watch over the robot for theft and most especially sabotage, but even then, it's much cheaper than a trained welder (and welds more cleanly).
The construction syndicate here in Uruguay is very big and very radicalized, making construction costs ridiculously expensive compared to average wages, I fear for the first person to bring the bricklaying robot here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/robots/a22082/wat...
Edit: the robot I'm talking about is a robotic orbital welder, something like this one:
https://www.robots.com/articles/viewing/a-round-the-edge-orb...
As much as I support higher minimal wages, I can't help but conclude that this will only accelerate capital expendures in human-replacing automation
Automation is good. Eventually, it will lead to shorter working day (e.g. 6 or even 4 hours), shorter working week (e.g. 4 days, or even 3.5 days), to longer vacations, to better health care, earlier retirement, and so on.
I don't necessarily agree. That could be an outcome, but it would require policies or voluntary restraint to get there.
At least in my country (Uruguay), the lower earning 8% have 30% of the children, placing a huge strain on society and services (I don't see robots replacing medical and social services anytime soon).
So, to enable a sustainable society like you propose, something like a two children per couple rule should be enacted (hopefully nothing so harsh as the Chinese version).
At least in my country (Uruguay), the lower earning 8% have 30% of the children, placing a huge strain on society and services (I don't see robots replacing medical and social services anytime soon).
So, to enable a sustainable society like you propose, something like a two children per couple rule should be enacted (hopefully nothing so harsh as the Chinese version).
If these benefits are demanded, either by government action or organized labor. If it's up to those who control corporations, they have no reason to cut hours and increase benefits out of the goodness of their own hearts; they'll just fire people.
It would be great if that were the result. But it remains to be seen. The requirement is that humans decide to change their economic system.
If we don't do that (and human society is really good at staying on autopilot until problems have gotten truly severe), we'll just end up with a mostly-automated society where the robot owners have everything and everyone else lives in a ghetto.
If we don't do that (and human society is really good at staying on autopilot until problems have gotten truly severe), we'll just end up with a mostly-automated society where the robot owners have everything and everyone else lives in a ghetto.
See the Roman Empire economy for references.
Massive farms powered by slaves, plebs living on minimum welfare in poverty. Rich aristocrats spending their time on propaganda and schemes.
Horror story about society without automation. However, North beat South, so it is gone.
Does the US really have a problem with unemployment? Nationally it is at its lowest since like 2000 - around 5% now. Yes averages are not good to use, there are areas where it might be 0.5% and some where it is 10%.
Bringing back things we used to do is looking in the rear view mirror. There should be investments in technology, education geared towards that and visionary things for us to accomplish for the future.
Bringing back things we used to do is looking in the rear view mirror. There should be investments in technology, education geared towards that and visionary things for us to accomplish for the future.
No, we have a problem with wage growth.
That isn't to say that the types of jobs have a huge impact. If McD paid $25/hr with full benefits, nobody would give a shit. Kind of hard to make that sustainable without clawing back real jobs from the 3rd world.
Germany seems to do a fine job with their auto industry, robots and all. I think this article is very flawed as that $8 task is but one of many and also one of the few perfect for a robot. "Spot welding isn't coming back to human manufacturing" is more accurate.
That isn't to say that the types of jobs have a huge impact. If McD paid $25/hr with full benefits, nobody would give a shit. Kind of hard to make that sustainable without clawing back real jobs from the 3rd world.
Germany seems to do a fine job with their auto industry, robots and all. I think this article is very flawed as that $8 task is but one of many and also one of the few perfect for a robot. "Spot welding isn't coming back to human manufacturing" is more accurate.
Workforce participation numbers are also rather low.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/labor-force-...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/labor-force-...
And a problem with workers rights, our citizens are not fighting for a better working environment.
Examples?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...
Here's a good start.
Here's a good start.
Nope, that isn't a good start. I'm looking for examples that show the US has a bad working environment. You providing a wiki link to "unions in the USA" does not address the question.
What is bad about our labor environment and why? And compared to whom?
What is bad about our labor environment and why? And compared to whom?
I don't know the answer to your specific question but I want to mention unemployment may be a misleading number. Unemployment only counts people who are actively looking for employment. It doesn't include those who have given up and dropped out of the labor market or those who are underemployed. It's only one metric of the health of the workforce and shouldn't be looked at alone.
Good points. Getting metrics that cover underemployed and apathy would be difficult.
Where I was going was that it appears looking backwards to want to bring jobs back that were outsourced for mostly cheaper labor. If US companies could do those things here profitably, they would.
Where I was going was that it appears looking backwards to want to bring jobs back that were outsourced for mostly cheaper labor. If US companies could do those things here profitably, they would.
Yes. Look at how the labor force participation rate has changed over the last ten or twenty years.
Interestingly I can see a case where a drop in labor force participation is a positive thing, it depends on who is dropping out. I can see more senors retiring and more voluntary stay at home parents being an indication of more general financial security among the population. More people who can afford not to work.
However if the drop is in people who want to or need to work that's obviously bad.
However if the drop is in people who want to or need to work that's obviously bad.
Those gains are not equally spread over all demographics. The decline in some groups can be masked by gains in others.
Question for fellow Hackernewsers... my family is from middle America. One of my younger female relatives is going into the welding trade. She's one of the more talented young welders out there blending skill and artistry.
My question is this: what would you suggest as a way to "robot proof" herself from the inevitable automation of the welding trade while staying true to her craft?
My question is this: what would you suggest as a way to "robot proof" herself from the inevitable automation of the welding trade while staying true to her craft?
Suggestion: Learn to do welding of vacuum chambers. Think A&N corp, Kurt J. Lesker, etc. The welds have to be done on the inside of the chamber, then cleaned, and I have yet to see a good robot for this. The market is small enough that it may cost more to develop a good robot than it is worth. It also pays higher than standard welding.
/used to hire a vacuum welder
/used to hire a vacuum welder
Thanks FlatLuxDave! I'll pass this along.
Work on R&D and creating robots. And, like you said, the arts...
The arts are notoriously bad at providing a living. She's planning on welding for a living wage, and art on the side.
One way is to lower the expense of hiring people in the US. An obvious one would be lowering payroll taxes for certain types of jobs. Another way is to simply lower the corporate tax rate, which would have the additional benefit of repatriating tons of money that is sitting offshore because of American tax rates.
And what when the robot goes to $4/hr? Eat less expensive food? Have fewer children? What when the robot goes to $0.02/hr?
I've never run a company so this may be naive or uninformed on my part, but I get the impression that hiring and firing people, at least here in California, can be a costly process with regards to unemployment insurance, litigation for wrongful termination, etc. Again, I may be overestimating this burden on businesses so please correct me if I'm wrong.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that despite how good your interview/hiring process may be, you always end up with some hires that don't work out which lead me to believe that you probably turn away a near equal amount of applicants that would have been great employees. It's just very difficult to evaluate someone over the course of a few interviews. For entry level positions this is even harder since you may not have much professional experience or reputation to go by.
I've always thought it would be interesting if companies would run a kind of tryout phase of employment, say 1-3 months, paid of course, at the end of which the top performers would be given permanent employment. This way a company might be willing to take on more marginal applicants with the knowledge that it will be very easy to terminate them. I'm sure there are negative aspects of such a system that I'm not considering, but as a person working in aerospace doing manufacturing/skilled labor and without any formal education beyond high school to fall back on, I always thought such a system might be a good way for someone like me to get their foot in the door.
One thing I've noticed over the years is that despite how good your interview/hiring process may be, you always end up with some hires that don't work out which lead me to believe that you probably turn away a near equal amount of applicants that would have been great employees. It's just very difficult to evaluate someone over the course of a few interviews. For entry level positions this is even harder since you may not have much professional experience or reputation to go by.
I've always thought it would be interesting if companies would run a kind of tryout phase of employment, say 1-3 months, paid of course, at the end of which the top performers would be given permanent employment. This way a company might be willing to take on more marginal applicants with the knowledge that it will be very easy to terminate them. I'm sure there are negative aspects of such a system that I'm not considering, but as a person working in aerospace doing manufacturing/skilled labor and without any formal education beyond high school to fall back on, I always thought such a system might be a good way for someone like me to get their foot in the door.
It is true that lowering the employment "friction" (i.e. cost of hiring and firing) means that employers will be more willing to take risks on new hires.
Some european countries make it difficult to fire people, with the unintended consequence that companies become very reluctant to hire in the first place.
Some european countries make it difficult to fire people, with the unintended consequence that companies become very reluctant to hire in the first place.
Probation? I thought companies already did do this. In many instances the labor laws have more leeway in the initial stages of employment.
"Another way is to simply lower the corporate tax rate, which would have the additional benefit of repatriating tons of money that is sitting offshore because of American tax rates."
That worked so well the first time.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702036331045766237...
That worked so well the first time.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702036331045766237...
A one time tax break does not change the fundamental incentive structure, as building a significant business operation is a long term investment.
Corporate cash reserves are at record highs currently [1], wouldn't a tax break on the demand side likely have a greater impact on velocity of capitol as it would likely be spent rather than remaining static?
[1]http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/05/08/u-s-com...
[1]http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurengensler/2015/05/08/u-s-com...
Well, I don't know how it is in other states, but in Kansas, only the first $12k of payroll per employee is taxed per year. The rest is exempt from tax. So, if you pay someone $10 an hour or $25 an hour for a full-time job for the year, the payroll tax is still the same for that employee.
How would lowering the corporate tax rate make or facilitate a corporation to hire people in the US/Canada?
Lowering the cost of doing business in the US makes it more favorable for companies to locate their operations in the US.
I like to tinker and build things. I still go to humans for value-added sheet-metal work and welding. However, downstream, mature manufacturing processes are ripe for replacement by automation.
The plummeting cost of capital plant!
Which to me raises an important question. Why aren't these huge cost reductions showing up in the prices of products from competitive industries like autos?
Which to me raises an important question. Why aren't these huge cost reductions showing up in the prices of products from competitive industries like autos?
Cars ARE cheaper. However, as a sibling commenter mentions, consumers demand more features, so they're spending about the same (inflation adjusted).
I took the time to investigate a few months ago and came up with this (UK-centric) example:
Let's take a cheap car from the 1960s, an Austin Mini Cooper.
A 1960s Mini Cooper was about 500 pounds. That's 10.000 pounds in today's money.
Today you can buy a Dacia Sandero for 6.000 pounds. That's almost half of a Mini Cooper.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12551017
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2232885/Top-...
I took the time to investigate a few months ago and came up with this (UK-centric) example:
Let's take a cheap car from the 1960s, an Austin Mini Cooper.
A 1960s Mini Cooper was about 500 pounds. That's 10.000 pounds in today's money.
Today you can buy a Dacia Sandero for 6.000 pounds. That's almost half of a Mini Cooper.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12551017
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2232885/Top-...
>consumers demand more features
I don't think customers demand more features as much as governments mandate more [safety] features. Well, maybe some features are mostly market driven like power windows replacing crank windows and keyless entry. But I believe car companies would build bargain basement death machines if they were legally allowed to.
Here's some inflation adjusted average car prices for the US - http://whnt.com/2016/04/25/the-average-car-now-costs-25449-h... Cars were the cheapest in the early 70s.
I don't think customers demand more features as much as governments mandate more [safety] features. Well, maybe some features are mostly market driven like power windows replacing crank windows and keyless entry. But I believe car companies would build bargain basement death machines if they were legally allowed to.
Here's some inflation adjusted average car prices for the US - http://whnt.com/2016/04/25/the-average-car-now-costs-25449-h... Cars were the cheapest in the early 70s.
Interesting graph :) .
To be honest, we have some "bargain basement death machines" on the road here in Uruguay... but they sure beat the alternative (unsafe motorbikes).
In particular, the Chery QQ (cost in China about U$ 4000) is huge here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chery_QQ3
To be honest, we have some "bargain basement death machines" on the road here in Uruguay... but they sure beat the alternative (unsafe motorbikes).
In particular, the Chery QQ (cost in China about U$ 4000) is huge here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chery_QQ3
Every year cars are required to have more and more safety features which raises the price.
They aren't as competitive as they appear.
Haha, yeah I said as much in a FB post to my Trump supporting friends. Do you really think Trump can stop self-driving cars from taking away your truck driving job? I doubt it.
With all being said, can a country without export or import can grow in terms of quality of live indefinitely??
The question is what does $8 per Hour look like when factoring in capital costs, maintenance and flexibility and that's not addressed by the article.
It's interesting that Apple and others closed ultra modern robotics factory in the US and now essentially assemble most stuff by hand in China.
It argues that robotics is not always a no brainer choice under many circumstances (which admittedly would be difficult to create in the US)
It's interesting that Apple and others closed ultra modern robotics factory in the US and now essentially assemble most stuff by hand in China.
It argues that robotics is not always a no brainer choice under many circumstances (which admittedly would be difficult to create in the US)
http://atomicdelights.com/blog/why-your-next-iphone-wont-be-... (and other blog posts on the same blog) seems to disagree that Apple "essentially assembles most stuff by hand" - e.g.
> Apple is the world's largest owner of CNC milling machines and swiss style lathes.
> Apple is the world's largest owner of CNC milling machines and swiss style lathes.
You're correct in that Apple is one of, if not the largest owner of CNC machines, and that those machines are responsible for a large portion of their total manufacturing work, but I believe they still use a tremendous amount of human labor for final assembly.
It might be that Apple did that but do you think American employees will be as "flexible" and cheap as Chinese? If American factory workers are willing to work for less then Chinese your argument definitely holds.
This may be true today but the technology is evolving faster then humans are.
Technology should enhance quality of life of people. when it replaces people, chaos ensue !
So no more dishwasher machines, forget self driving cars, bring back elevator operators, and have more laws like requiring gas station attendants in New Jersey... What a horrible notion that impeding progress to give people pointless work, which makes things less convenient and efficient, is somehow a fix. The population has gone from 1 to near 7 billion people in just over a hundred years. Economic incentives against just having more unskilled labor is not a flaw that needs fixing, it's or economic and environmental necessities coming into alignment, telling us that having 4+ kids is a bad idea in a world as overpopulated as this, and instead to have smaller families with more resources put into educating the one or two kids we do have
I don't see how this addresses the point that millions of people are suffering due to automation. Are you saying only the well off should be able to have kids?
I'm saying that the solution to this problem won't come from creating fake work to trick people into thinking that they're productive members of society.
And honestly everyone should be having fewer kids, but the well off already are. Turns out that evolutionary and economic forces of selection don't favor people reproducing beyond their means. People can mistake this emergent property for a planned eugenics program and blame the messenger whenever somebody speaks the truth, but better to realize that wanting all human life to have some intrinsic market value does not make it so and plan accordingly.
And honestly everyone should be having fewer kids, but the well off already are. Turns out that evolutionary and economic forces of selection don't favor people reproducing beyond their means. People can mistake this emergent property for a planned eugenics program and blame the messenger whenever somebody speaks the truth, but better to realize that wanting all human life to have some intrinsic market value does not make it so and plan accordingly.
"everyone should be having fewer kids, but the well of already are" seems directly contradictory to "evolutionary and economic forces don't favor people reproducing beyond their means."
The answer is not necessarily less automation, but more interesting conversations about how societies cater for less manual labour jobs in the future.
It's not a particular new thought -- the mythical Ned Ludd (and band) were concerned about how the transition happened, not (as they are popular portrayed) simply committed to stopping any kind of progress.
It's naive to imagine that we can will away any kind of technological progress, simply because our parents believed (and indoctrinated us into believing) that we are all entitled to work 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, 45 years of our lives ... and that any attempt to infringe on that ersatz freedom is a personal attack, and any discussion around alternatives is akin to calling someone's god(s) a fraud.
Consider the ever erudite John Ralston Saul's comments from his fantastic work The Doubter's Companion:
" 'Luddites' - Highly trained individuals whose careers were destroyed by technological progress. This progress was treated as inevitable and uncontrollable. The Luddites therefore occupied the only remaining intellectual position, which consisted of rejecting technological progress.
"This reduction of attitudes to two extreme positions was accomplished between 1811 and 1830 when the introduction of Watt’s steam-engines and water-driven wool-finishing machines made hundreds of handicraftsmen redundant.
"Industrialization was spreading from sector to sector and quickly eliminated most crafts along with tens of thousands of jobs.
"The Luddites (named after an imaginary leader, Ned Lud) broke up and burnt factories. Their revolt ended in a group trial in 1813. Five were hanged. The attitude of society towards unrestrained technological progress was made perfectly clear. The judge said the Luddites’ actions were “one of the greatest atrocities that was ever committed in a civilized country.”1
"This was a classic case of provocation and order versus despair and disorder. Wilfrid Laurier described the nature of this type of conflict when he spoke in 1886 about the Riel Rebellion. “What is hateful…is not rebellion, but the despotism which induces that rebellion; not rebels but the men who, having the enjoyment of power, do not discharge the duties of power; the men who, when they are asked for a loaf, give a stone.”2
"What society misunderstood early in the nineteenth century when faced by the industrial revolution was the full nature of the change. The debate should not have been over whether there should be technological progress or not. It was more accurately a question of progress in what conditions: what progress, when, in what circumstances? Market extremists would argue that what happened was inevitable and eventually brought general prosperity. Their view ignores the social disorder, followed by suffering, followed by serious social disorder that this approach towards change brought on. Communism was the direct result. England, France, Germany and Sweden suffered recurring internal violence throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some of it expanding into civil wars. Most of these countries passed within a shadow of revolution.
"The question is therefore not whether technological progress was necessary, but whether it was necessary to go about it in a barbaric manner. It can be argued that the Luddites were wrong in 1811. But society spent the next 150 years rendering progress civilized and thereby proving that the infuriated craftsmen had been right at least in spirit. Did these decades of wasted time, effort, lives and money represent an intelligent use of human talents?"
It's not a particular new thought -- the mythical Ned Ludd (and band) were concerned about how the transition happened, not (as they are popular portrayed) simply committed to stopping any kind of progress.
It's naive to imagine that we can will away any kind of technological progress, simply because our parents believed (and indoctrinated us into believing) that we are all entitled to work 9 hours a day, 5 days a week, 45 years of our lives ... and that any attempt to infringe on that ersatz freedom is a personal attack, and any discussion around alternatives is akin to calling someone's god(s) a fraud.
Consider the ever erudite John Ralston Saul's comments from his fantastic work The Doubter's Companion:
" 'Luddites' - Highly trained individuals whose careers were destroyed by technological progress. This progress was treated as inevitable and uncontrollable. The Luddites therefore occupied the only remaining intellectual position, which consisted of rejecting technological progress.
"This reduction of attitudes to two extreme positions was accomplished between 1811 and 1830 when the introduction of Watt’s steam-engines and water-driven wool-finishing machines made hundreds of handicraftsmen redundant.
"Industrialization was spreading from sector to sector and quickly eliminated most crafts along with tens of thousands of jobs.
"The Luddites (named after an imaginary leader, Ned Lud) broke up and burnt factories. Their revolt ended in a group trial in 1813. Five were hanged. The attitude of society towards unrestrained technological progress was made perfectly clear. The judge said the Luddites’ actions were “one of the greatest atrocities that was ever committed in a civilized country.”1
"This was a classic case of provocation and order versus despair and disorder. Wilfrid Laurier described the nature of this type of conflict when he spoke in 1886 about the Riel Rebellion. “What is hateful…is not rebellion, but the despotism which induces that rebellion; not rebels but the men who, having the enjoyment of power, do not discharge the duties of power; the men who, when they are asked for a loaf, give a stone.”2
"What society misunderstood early in the nineteenth century when faced by the industrial revolution was the full nature of the change. The debate should not have been over whether there should be technological progress or not. It was more accurately a question of progress in what conditions: what progress, when, in what circumstances? Market extremists would argue that what happened was inevitable and eventually brought general prosperity. Their view ignores the social disorder, followed by suffering, followed by serious social disorder that this approach towards change brought on. Communism was the direct result. England, France, Germany and Sweden suffered recurring internal violence throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, some of it expanding into civil wars. Most of these countries passed within a shadow of revolution.
"The question is therefore not whether technological progress was necessary, but whether it was necessary to go about it in a barbaric manner. It can be argued that the Luddites were wrong in 1811. But society spent the next 150 years rendering progress civilized and thereby proving that the infuriated craftsmen had been right at least in spirit. Did these decades of wasted time, effort, lives and money represent an intelligent use of human talents?"
> Technology should enhance quality of
> life of people. when it replaces people,
> chaos ensue !
There's no 'should' with technology - it's merely a (set of) thing(s).
Replacing people, in the sense of doing away with Bullshit Jobs <tm> is entirely the goal of new technology - so that those people can do something else. Ideally that something else is something they want to do (and that may (but not necessarily does) improve the world).
I think your prediction that people will be replaced by technology is a little naive.
The idea that the pointless activities of some people will be replaced by the vague category of 'technology' is entirely palatable to most people.
> There's no 'should' with technology.
This is a common belief but it isn't true.
Actually, government plays a huge role in deciding how technology is developed and broadly adopted by society. There is a should with technology: in the sense of achieving a desirable or expected state.
This is a common belief but it isn't true.
Actually, government plays a huge role in deciding how technology is developed and broadly adopted by society. There is a should with technology: in the sense of achieving a desirable or expected state.
I liked your original edit the most :)
Outside of Singapore, I don't know of (m)any governments where administrators are even passably proficient in matters of technology.
Generally governments are hostile towards any new technology until they can work out how to turn them into a benefit to the state (water catchment tanks, internet, bitcoin, solar generators, uber, et cetera)..
The other (bigger) part of my point was that we need to start having civilised discussions about how we integrate technology into our society now, rather than half-way through revolutions / civil wars.
> Actually, government plays a huge
> role in deciding how technology is
> developed and broadly adopted by
>society.
Outside of Singapore, I don't know of (m)any governments where administrators are even passably proficient in matters of technology.
Generally governments are hostile towards any new technology until they can work out how to turn them into a benefit to the state (water catchment tanks, internet, bitcoin, solar generators, uber, et cetera)..
> There is a should with technology:
> in the sense of achieving a desirable
> or expected state.
The other (bigger) part of my point was that we need to start having civilised discussions about how we integrate technology into our society now, rather than half-way through revolutions / civil wars.
To a first approximation all improvements in people's standards of living come from reducing the amount of labor required to make stuff. In the long run the average consumption has to equal the average production. You can play around at the margin with varying distribution, imports and exports, or getting people to work longer hours. But those effects are all tiny compared to the effects of changes in worker productivity over the last 100 years.
Uhhh? So what?
> it costs barely $8 an hour to use a robot for spot welding in the auto industry, compared to $25 for a worker—and the gap is only going to widen.
This is just wrong. Author does not know much about welding or car manufacturing.
- Car welding is a best case for robots. Single task repeated many times exactly the same way. Try different case and you get $1M/hour.
- $25/hour human cost is too low. With pauses, errors, delays... $100/hour would be more reasonable.
- Germany is exactly in this situation, but does not have problem with unemployment.
This is just wrong. Author does not know much about welding or car manufacturing.
- Car welding is a best case for robots. Single task repeated many times exactly the same way. Try different case and you get $1M/hour.
- $25/hour human cost is too low. With pauses, errors, delays... $100/hour would be more reasonable.
- Germany is exactly in this situation, but does not have problem with unemployment.
And here we see how news written by people without industry experience meant to be consumed by people without industry experience for the purpose of promoting a political idea can use pieces of real information to promote something less than the truth.
Next time you want to see if you trust a certain source for any of your information, pay close attention when they report on a topic where you have a lot of experience. As someone with a professional aviation background, watching CNN cover any aviation topic causes me physical pain.
Next time you want to see if you trust a certain source for any of your information, pay close attention when they report on a topic where you have a lot of experience. As someone with a professional aviation background, watching CNN cover any aviation topic causes me physical pain.
And this was published under the banner of MIT without 'editorial' or 'opinion'.
This is fact! /s
Reads like another partisan puff piece griping about the election to me, which is a shame because the underlying concept (automation) is interesting to me, but the conclusion (manufacturing is doomed) is hyperbole.
This is fact! /s
Reads like another partisan puff piece griping about the election to me, which is a shame because the underlying concept (automation) is interesting to me, but the conclusion (manufacturing is doomed) is hyperbole.
It's quite likely they are quoting the actual costs from 2 different car plants.
(that would make them highly task specific, but it would reflect the difference in welding costs for producing cars on a high volume line)
(that would make them highly task specific, but it would reflect the difference in welding costs for producing cars on a high volume line)
I checked linked study:
> A human welder today earns around $25 per hour (including benefits), while the equivalent operating cost per hour for a robot is around $8 when installation, maintenance, and the operating costs of all hardware, software, and peripherals are amortized over a five-year depreciation period.
So human cost does not include total cost, just labour. Comparable cost would be around $100
> A human welder today earns around $25 per hour (including benefits), while the equivalent operating cost per hour for a robot is around $8 when installation, maintenance, and the operating costs of all hardware, software, and peripherals are amortized over a five-year depreciation period.
So human cost does not include total cost, just labour. Comparable cost would be around $100
Same thing with automated driving. Open interstate is fine, try to navigate Boston rush hour in a construction zone...
I am sure that Microsoft and Google are racing to have their AI be the first to do that.
[deleted]