Is a Robot Going to Steal Your Job? (60 Minutes segment)

[1prophet]

Those fast food workers demanding 15 dollars an hour might speed up the implementation of the robot burger cook.

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/meet-the-robot-that-makes-360-gourmet-burgers-per-hour

Meet the Robot That Makes 360 Gourmet Burgers Per Hour

The San Francisco-based robotics company debuted its burger-preparing machine last year. It can whip up hundreds of burgers an hour, take custom orders, and it uses top-shelf ingredients for its inputs. Now Momentum is proposing a chain of ‘smart restaurants’ that eschew human cooks altogether.

Food Beast points us to the Momentum’s official release, where the company blares:

“Fast food doesn’t have to have a negative connotation anymore. With our technology, a restaurant can offer gourmet quality burgers at fast food prices. Our alpha machine replaces all of the hamburger line cooks in a restaurant. It does everything employees can do except better.”

And what might this robotic burger cook of the future do better than the slow, inefficient, wage-sucking line cooks of yore?

• It slices toppings like tomatoes and pickles only immediately before it places the slice onto your burger, giving you the freshest burger possible.
• …custom meat grinds for every single customer. Want a patty with 1/3 pork and 2/3 bison ground after you place your order? No problem.
• It’s more consistent, more sanitary, and can produce ~360 hamburgers per hour.

Furthermore, the "labor savings allow a restaurant to spend approximately twice as much on high quality ingredients and the gourmet cooking techniques make the ingredients taste that much better.” Hear that? Without all those cumbersome human workers, your hamburger will be twice as good. For the same cost.

I don’t doubt this is where we’re heading; robots are making inroads in manufacturing, farming, and they’re doing more domestic work around the house, too. Yeah, robots are taking our jobs, and it’s not a question of if, but when and how. Economists often treat the service industry as some last bastion of downsize-proof labor, but, clearly, robots will make sandwiches and take orders, too.

A future where we can get gourmet burgers, cheaply and on the quick, sounds pretty nice. But that future will also have structural unemployment, unless we start taking major strides to rethink and reform how we work in a world where robots are doing much of the heavy lifting. If we can, with robots flipping all the burgers, and the right social policies, maybe at least a semi-techno-utopia is on the way…

 

[BoberFett]

Mmmmm, roboburger. I'm in for one.

 

[soulcougher73]

Much like cars, someone has to repair all of those robots when they bust. When they need a refuel. When it needs a new battery. When it needs a firmware upgrade.

It then becomes a matter of: Do you have the skills to repair it and know how it functions?

Adapt or die. A statement not just for living in a jungle....

Correct, but that doesn't take many people to do unfortunately. And even then they may automate that as well someday.

 

[CrackRabbit]

That's why I have Old Glory Robot Insurance.

On a more serious note, automation has been taking jobs ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution (and probably slightly before). Advanced robotics are just the next step. Human jobs will be replaced by robots and humans will adapt to doing other jobs or running the robots.

 

[xBiffx]

Doesn't make any sense. If you're going to use a robot for physical labor, and you need one human to oversee every robot, then it costs more that way. No reason to even use the robot.

Makes perfect sense. There are plenty of jobs that a robot can do better, faster, and more consistently than a human can (not to mention some jobs are not safe for humans). That is the reason to automate. Robots are a hell of a lot more efficient but they still require a human presence.

The kind of automation that completely replaces humans does not come cheap and is very rare. Most of the time robots are used to fill in a specific and usually simple task but that doesn't take away the need for humans. This really is a bunch of hype and misconception about automation. To completely automate something and eliminate humans is very cost prohibitive and in a lot of cases, still not possible even today.

 

[boomerang]

Doesn't make any sense. If you're going to use a robot for physical labor, and you need one human to oversee every robot, then it costs more that way. No reason to even use the robot.

I think you may have misunderstood his post but then again, maybe his experience has been in a union shop.

My experience was in stamping operations. In the olden days it might have taken up to 20 to 26 human beings to man a stamping line. With the introduction of mechanical handling equipment, that dropped to 1 who put the finished parts in a basket or rack. That job could have been easily automated, but it was beneficial to have someone handling each part for inspection purposes.

I don't think he was implying a one for one scenario. He was just saying that humans were still involved in the process.

BTW, that rotten UAW allowed enormous reductions in manpower to occur. Probably hard to believe for the typical outsider.

Edit: Looks like I was typing while xBiffx was posting.

 

[Doppel]

What you're saying has been said before: people only need so much to survive so one day through automation and technical revolution we will increase our production so much that we will effortlessly provide all of the human needs to the whole population with a lot of machines and only a fraction of population employed to design/take care of said machines. The rest of the population won't have to do anything because there will be no need.

I've heard this line of thinking many times again and again, and I think it's just never going to happen for one simple reason - greedy human nature. The top one percent that essentially owns everything in the country practically ensures that most of the productivity gains to them leaving nothing for the rest of the country. And the rest of the country is squeezed between rock and a hard place, on one hand they are being robbed of any productivity gains, and on the other they want more money and more things, so they work longer and harder.

Bottom line what you're talking about is utopia. It will never happen. Even if those people drop out of work force to find something else more enjoyable to do in their lives, who's going to provide food and shelter for them? The rest of society? Fat chance.

Remember human flight was impossible until it wasn't. Running the mile in under 4:00 was impossible until it wasn't. Computers being faster than people didn't exist until they did.

Forget the theoretical. Look around you. You can now see an automated teller working right next to a human being doing the bulk of their job and for far less money. If that teller is using RFID and automatically packaging product with a couple of robot arms what can that person do? They move to another job. And what if that job is driving a taxi, which is now being done by somebody else as well?

Marginalizing people's utility while at the same time increasing social benefits that can be had without work are going to continue to squeeze the bottom classes out of necessary labor.

Let's not forget that this has already happened. It need not only be automation but also economic surplus. A hundred years ago could an entire family go without work and yet not suffer horribly? Absolutely not. Now they can, they can sit around and eat in an air conditioned apartment and literally never work.

Worked as an automation engineer for almost a decade. Most of which has been spent installing and implementing robotics for that automation.

Never have I seen a robot replace a human worker. The human worker's job merely changes but they are always still employed. Someone has to be there to watch and feed/load the automation with materials.

Surprising an automation engineer would say that, since obviously you're incorrect or have just been lucky enough not to see people lose work after automation. I can only assume you were too deep in the trenches as not aware of what the big wigs were doing with the products of your labor.

As time goes on in manufacturing environments a single person is able to produce more. This is an indisputable fact. How are they producing more? Previously it takes 2 people to generate $1M of product. Now it takes 1. Unless that company has doubled its sales, thus maintaining its workforce, it will not need the two people. This is precisely what the 60 minutes is getting at. Did you even watch the video? It's nothing I've not read elsewhere. I think Time had a nice article on it a year back.

Do you think a professional digging company that used to hire 20 guys with shovels and now has bought an excavator is going to automatically find work for the other 19 guys?

 

[xBiffx]

Surprising an automation engineer would say that, since obviously you're incorrect or have just been lucky enough not to see people lose work after automation. I can only assume you were too deep in the trenches as not aware of what the big wigs were doing with the products of your labor.

You wish you knew what you were talking about. It isn't obvious at all. Human don't get replaced by automation/robots. Their job changes. What you and this hyped up story are proposing hasn't happened yet. Perhaps it will in many years but by that time the world is going to be a vastly different place with (my guess) a whole lot less people. After all, how are we going to feed everyone?

Like I said, I've been doing this for quite some time. No one has been let go do to a piece of automation.

 

[Engineer]

You wish you knew what you were talking about. It isn't obvious at all. Human don't get replaced by automation/robots. Their job changes. What you and this hyped up story are proposing hasn't happened yet. Perhaps it will in many years but by that time the world is going to be a vastly different place with (my guess) a whole lot less people. After all, how are we going to feed everyone?

Like I said, I've been doing this for quite some time. No one has been let go do to a piece of automation.

All humans don't get replaced but I assure you that humans do get replaced with robots. The video that I posted in OT of the robot assembly machine eliminated 3 people. There were 4 people originally in the process and now there is one person who goes around and loads ALL machines and unloads the final product to an organized box. Not sure where you are getting the robots and automation don't replace people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv7vwSnTZjs

And if you don't think that people are let go, you're really not doing it at all. Simple as that.

P.S. and I assure you that I know what I'm talking about.

Edit: And it's not just this country either....I've seen many Mexicans displaced (not difficult as they typically quit on their own after 30 days or so anyway) by automation, mostly robotic machines. If the robot is cheap enough, then yes, even Mexicans can be replaced - although in those cases, it was probably more due to quality than quantity / savings but those were factored in the decision when building the equipment.

 

[xBiffx]

All humans don't get replaced but I assure you that humans do get replaced with robots. The video that I posted in OT of the robot assembly machine eliminated 3 people. There were 4 people originally in the process and now there is one person who goes around and loads ALL machines and unloads the final product to an organized box. Not sure where you are getting the robots and automation don't replace people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pv7vwSnTZjs

And if you don't think that people are let go, you're really not doing it at all. Simple as that.

P.S. and I assure you that I know what I'm talking about.

Edit: And it's not just this country either....I've seen many Mexicans displaced (not difficult as they typically quit on their own after 30 days or so anyway) by automation, mostly robotic machines. If the robot is cheap enough, then yes, even Mexicans can be replaced - although in those cases, it was probably more due to quality than quantity / savings but those were factored in the decision when building the equipment.

Humans can be replaced, yes. But it doesn't happen on the scale that the video in the OP is talking about. It isn't the reason for mass unemployment. It isn't some epidemic that is going to amount to mass amounts of people out on the street any time soon. That is simply hype that is giving those in tough times some sort of an excuse (I guess).

This whole thing sounds like chicken little.

Again, there are very few instances where automation completely replaces people. Those instances are reserved for very simple operations. To try and do it for complex processes is extremely cost prohibitive.

I also know what I am talking about and neither of us is contradicting each other.

Edit: Think about it. Companies that manufacture and sell automation aren't at the top of the list in revenues. Heck, Siemens is like 60th, far from the top and many other none automation companies ahead of it. If what people are saying is true and robots are replacing people left and right then you would see automation companies ruling the world. That is just science fiction just like I, Robot and other movies.

 

[Engineer]

Humans can be replaced, yes. But it doesn't happen on the scale that the video in the OP is talking about. It isn't the reason for mass unemployment. It isn't some epidemic that is going to amount to mass amounts of people out on the street any time soon. That is simply hype that is giving those in tough times some sort of an excuse (I guess).

This whole thing sounds like chicken little.

Again, there are very few instances where automation completely replaces people. Those instances are reserved for very simple operations. To try and do it for complex processes is extremely cost prohibitive.

I also know what I am talking about and neither of us is contradicting each other.

I'm not commenting on the video in the OP because I have not watched it but I'm am telling you that people ARE being replaced. If you are looking at an expanding factory that is moving people around and getting increased production by adding automation, that's one thing (nobody is let go but more production is put out) but there are thousands of factories that are producing FAR more with FAR fewer people through automation (i.e. people are let go and not called back). I've seen it from both the OEM side (i.e. working and building automation for our own factories replacing people as fast as possible and one of the big justifications for the CAPEX (capital expenditures) was the removal of XXX heads - simple as that) and from the 'outside integrator' side - where we build whatever the customer wants. From that side, I hardly ever get to see the justification of automation but the video that I posted had the justification of removing (and letting go) 3 people (and they did just that).

To that end, I'll also go on record that while automation does indeed replace people, it also keeps people in those countries employed. If a factory closes and moves to China, ALL jobs in that factory are lost not to mention the possible loss of outside supporting jobs. If the plant is automated, operators lose jobs but engineers, quality personnel, maintenance, management, outside support staff (including automation specialists) all stay right here and stay employed....along with a fewer number of operators. Automation might reduce the number of jobs, but in cases vs cheap foreign jobs, it saves the host country the loss of ALL jobs down to a somewhat manageable few losses.

 

[xBiffx]

I'm not commenting on the video in the OP because I have not watched it but I'm am telling you that people ARE being replaced. If you are looking at an expanding factory that is moving people around and getting increased production by adding automation, that's one thing (nobody is let go but more production is put out) but there are thousands of factories that are producing FAR more and FAR fewer people through automation (i.e. people are let go and not called back). I've seen it from both the OEM side (i.e. working and building automation for our own factories replacing people as fast as possible and one of the big justifications for the CAPEX was the removal of XXX heads - simple as that) and from the 'outside integrator' side - where we build whatever the customer wants. From that side, I hardly ever get to see the justification of automation but the video that I posted had the justification of removing (and letting go) 3 people (and they did just that).

Perhaps you should look at the video in the OP because my comments are directly related to the science fiction that it is.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I am saying that it happens on a very small scale when you look at all jobs across the board.

Never have I seen removing people as justification for automation. That might be a side result but the justification is usually efficiency, speed, cost, accuracy/precision, consistency, or safety.

 

[Doppel]

You wish you knew what you were talking about. It isn't obvious at all. Human don't get replaced by automation/robots. Their job changes. What you and this hyped up story are proposing hasn't happened yet. Perhaps it will in many years but by that time the world is going to be a vastly different place with (my guess) a whole lot less people. After all, how are we going to feed everyone?

Like I said, I've been doing this for quite some time. No one has been let go do to a piece of automation.

"You wish you knew what you were talking about."

There are plenty of automation engineers and scientists who completely disagree with you. In the 60 minutes piece a single little robot is doing the task of 1.5 people, for example.

You don't think simple spreadsheet software has not cost jobs?

Technology is constantly destroying jobs. It is also constantly creating jobs. There's no reason to think it will constantly create new ones at a pace greater than or equal to the rate it destroys them.

You said:

Never have I seen a robot replace a human worker. The human worker's job merely changes but they are always still employed.

First of all, you saw exactly it replace a human worker. It replaced that worker at the job they were doing previously. The fact they are now fortunate enough to have another job is unrelated entirely to the fact that their previous job is no longer done by them. If they are working in a similar capacity it means the automation was only partial. It's obvious that any company introducing automation is doing it to either increase quality (e.g. detail work a person cannot do) or lower cost. It lowers cost because per dollar of product it makes its internal cost is lower (cheaper labor of a machine vs a person).

As the price of robots come down the only way to not be replaced by one is to have your skill set increase above either their 1) Ability (for example some jobs are impossible to automate right now) or 2) Cost (maybe a robot can do your job but it's still more expensive than you are). At the moment the bar to labor entry is low, but as robots get better it will increase, and many people IMO will be just unfit for simple labor tasks.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/04/manufacturing-returns-to-usa/

• New US factories are “superautomated” and heavily roboticized;

• Employees typically are required to have computer skills and specialized training; Minimum of two-year tech degree, which is likely to rise to four-year degree (eventually);

 

[Engineer]

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. I am saying that it happens on a very small scale when you look at all jobs across the board.

Maybe all jobs but not in the manufacturing sector. Output up vs huge drops in jobs = automation (and maybe harder work by the remaining people as they struggle to keep their jobs).

You want to see nearly people-less factories, watch CNBC's series 'Ultimate Factories' (specifically the Ikea factory one). 25 years ago, there would have been hundreds of people doing what a handfull now do.

 

[Spungo]

OH SHIT!

Instead of bitching, let's learn how to adapt.
I like that idea of having more robots. The price of everything would drop dramatically. Look how cheap computers are. Imagine things like medicine being as cheap as computers. You go the doctor, put a $10 in the robot, and it removes a mole or stitches a wound or takes a blood sample.

 

[Engineer]

OH SHIT!

Instead of bitching, let's learn how to adapt.
I like that idea of having more robots. The price of everything would drop dramatically. Look how cheap computers are. Imagine things like medicine being as cheap as computers. You go the doctor, put a $10 in the robot, and it removes a mole or stitches a wound or takes a blood sample

The irony is that those 2 products have taken what used to take days / weeks (documents, ledgers, drafting tables to produce drawings, etc) and 'automated' them to the point of taking only hours (including 3D stuff like AutoCAD inventor and Solidworks). Throw in 3D printers with that and wow, now you have removed entire 'clay modeling' departments of yesterday....completely automated out of existence.

Again, irony......yes, you adapt to keep going but not everyone will have a job.....it's just that simple.

Oh, and it makes stuff cheaper for those that still have a job. For the rest....eh....not so much.

 

[xBiffx]

There are plenty of automation engineers and scientists who completely disagree with you. In the 60 minutes piece a single little robot is doing the task of 1.5 people, for example.

Does that mean that 1.5 people aren't working? Not necessarily and my experience tells me they go and do something else related to supporting to the automation. The video makes it sound like they are thrown out on the street.

First of all, you saw exactly it replace a human worker. It replaced that worker at the job they were doing previously. The fact they are now fortunate enough to have another job is unrelated entirely to the fact that their previous job is no longer done by them.

It didn't replace them. It augmented the work they did. Again, the video is trying to say that the job went away and that person is no longer employed. That hasn't been the case in my experience. I stand by my statement.

As the price of robots come down the only way to not be replaced by one is to have your skill set increase. At the moment the bar to labor entry is low, but as robots get better it will increase, and many people IMO will be just unfit for simple labor tasks.

Of course, at some point, there are going to be plenty of robots doing the jobs of people. But like I said earlier, that is likely going to be when the planet looks a whole lot different and there are a lot less people living on it. There is going to be no way to feed all those people as well as power all that automation. The Earth is going to reach a limit of sustainability (if it already hasn't) and there are either going to be less people and more robots or more people and less robots. Both aren't sustainable.

 

[xBiffx]

Maybe all jobs but not in the manufacturing sector. Output up vs huge drops in jobs = automation (and maybe harder work by the remaining people as they struggle to keep their jobs).

You want to see nearly people-less factories, watch CNBC's series 'Ultimate Factories' (specifically the Ikea factory one). 25 years ago, there would have been hundreds of people doing what a handfull now do.

That has a whole lot more to do with China than robots and I think you know that.

 

[Doppel]

OH SHIT!

Instead of bitching, let's learn how to adapt.
I like that idea of having more robots. The price of everything would drop dramatically. Look how cheap computers are. Imagine things like medicine being as cheap as computers. You go the doctor, put a $10 in the robot, and it removes a mole or stitches a wound or takes a blood sample.

Not everybody will be able to adapt. And really how can a person of average intelligence adapt to a bipedal robot that is stronger, faster, smarter than they are and can work 24/7?

I think it will be interesting to keep an eye on the Amish and similar luddites. They are in some ways at the vanguard of some issues because they don't use much technology, and yet still engage in commerce with those who do. This means that, at least so far, they've still been successfully competitive with technologically superior competitors in whatever their businesses are (such as furniture). Surely this won't always work out for them, though? A truly competent robot could have a load of wood dropped off from Home Depot and some tools and he can build a perfect table for you.

Robots will begin to really cut into military ranks eventually. Boots on the ground won't be in the lexicon, it will be robots on the ground and people won't care much about what happens to them.

 

[Engineer]

That has a whole lot more to do with China than robots and I think you know that.

Rising output (huge) in the US has something to do with China? Really? Come on man, you're grasping at straws on that one. Declining workers are indeed being effected by China but at the same time, they are being reduced by automation.

 

[Spungo]

Again, irony......yes, you adapt to keep going but not everyone will have a job.....it's just that simple.

Oh, and it makes stuff cheaper for those that still have a job. For the rest....eh....not so much.

Just make sure the welfare system is up to snuff and we'll do ok. If you can find a job, that's great. If not, hang in there until something comes up. With robots, things like high speed rail or upgrading the telephone grid could become affordable. With robot police, Detroit will stop being a city of crime and go back to being a regular city of high unemployment.

"give me your address there"

Robots will begin to really cut into military ranks eventually. Boots on the ground won't be in the lexicon, it will be robots on the ground and people won't care much about what happens to them.
_____

This idea really scares me. Why did the US pull out of vietnam? We didn't like the idea of our boys dying for bullshit reasons. What if it was a war with robots? That shit would still be going on. The death toll of vietnamese would be in the billions by now. The president would throw darts at a map to pick the next country to raze.

 

[Doppel]

Does that mean that 1.5 people aren't working? Not necessarily and my experience tells me they go and do something else related to supporting to the automation. The video makes it sound like they are thrown out on the street.

Perhaps they were. I think Amazon has a huge amount of automated fulfillment. Regardless of what happened to jobs when it was brought online, the fact of the matter is a job that a robot is doing means one less job a human is doing. This is only a good thing for the human if the company figures out something else for them to do.

Of course, at some point, there are going to be plenty of robots doing the jobs of people. But like I said earlier, that is likely going to be when the planet looks a whole lot different and there are a lot less people living on it. There is going to be no way to feed all those people as well as power all that automation. The Earth is going to reach a limit of sustainability (if it already hasn't) and there are either going to be less people and more robots or more people and less robots. Both aren't sustainable.

i think I have a more optimistic approach. Although i think decade over decade we'll see a squeeze on low skilled labor, and very stubborn unemployment numbers which, as usual, hurt the lowly educated, as long as we don't kill ourselves with war a hundred years from now it could be entirely possible that the majority of people are not working and robots are doing virtually everything--a realized version of the extremely premature thinking of those black and white vids from the 50's of a robot doing house work.

 

[Engineer]

Not sure the terminator is a good example of that, lol. Robocop? Maybe but not the terminator (and Skynet).

 

[Engineer]

Perhaps they were. I think Amazon has a huge amount of automated fulfillment. Regardless of what happened to jobs when it was brought online, the fact of the matter is a job that a robot is doing means one less job a human is doing. This is only a good thing for the human if the company figures out something else for them to do.i think I have a more optimistic approach. Although i think decade over decade we'll see a squeeze on low skilled labor, and very stubborn unemployment numbers which, as usual, hurt the lowly educated, as long as we don't kill ourselves with war a hundred years from now it could be entirely possible that the majority of people are not working and robots are doing virtually everything--a realized version of the extremely premature thinking of those black and white vids from the 50's of a robot doing house work.

iRobot is a great example of this.

 

[Spungo]

Not sure the terminator is a good example of that, lol. Robocop? Maybe but not the terminator (and Skynet).

Robocop screws around too much. Terminator, not so much. I also like the idea of a hot naked guy going around killing people