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

[xBiffx]

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.

I'm grasping at straws? I am not the one trying to make it look like output is independent of what's going on in the world and only has to do with automation. As if all companies were running at peak efficiency and automation is the only reason for increased output.

Companies have had to become competitive on a global scale, China being the primary culprit. I am sure some have increased their automation to do so but no way is that the only reason for increased output with reduced employees.

You of all people must know of Six Sigma and Lean.

 

[xBiffx]

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.

Mom works at Amazon's Fernley, NV plant. I asked here about their automation. I was surprised to here how little they have for the number of orders going through. They employ an amazing amount of people to pick orders (what she does). There is plenty of software/conveyors but they use a lot of boots on the ground, carts and forklifts.

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.

I can see this too. This all reminds me of that episode of the Jetsons where George has to go to the hospital because he has been pushing the same button too many times and gets a repetitive injury.

 

[Engineer]

I'm grasping at straws? I am not the one trying to make it look like output is independent of what's going on in the world and only has to do with automation. As if all companies were running at peak efficiency and automation is the only reason for increased output.

Companies have had to become competitive on a global scale, China being the primary culprit. I am sure some have increased their automation to do so but no way is that the only reason for increased output with reduced employees.

You of all people must know of Six Sigma and Lean.

Yes, you're grasping at straws. Sure, there are inefficiencies in EVERY process, including automation. The chart output rise vs drop in employment is simply not the result of making the existing operations 'more efficient'. The companies involved didn't just look at an operation and say "wow, we can do that job with one person instead of 3 without doing anything other than just doing it". Automation has absolutely driven the output up and the people down period. You're the only automation engineer in the world that believes otherwise, apparently (assuming you are what you say you are which I now have doubts).

 

[xBiffx]

The chart output rise vs drop in employment is simply not the result of making the existing operations 'more efficient'.

Never said it was. Actually I was saying that it wasn't all do to automation but it was still part of it.

Automation has absolutely driven the output up and the people down period.

Never said otherwise. Just simply stated their are other factors and they are a big part of it too.

You're the only automation engineer in the world that believes otherwise, apparently (assuming you are what you say you are which I now have doubts).

Given your previous misconceptions of what I said that I have just corrected, I can see why you might say that. Don't think you will find an automation engineer that disagrees with me that automation isn't the sole reason for increased output with decreased workers either.

 

[Engineer]

Given your previous misconceptions of what I said that I have just corrected, I can see why you might say that.

You've not said anything yet that has proven otherwise. You said people were not being replaced and I (and others) have said that they are and have proven it (I've seen it for 20 years). If there were a straight line (or increasing) in the number of factory workers, I would buy that but there is not and it's simply not just shipping jobs to China and Mexico.

Again, you might have been an automation engineer at one company that was constantly expanding while you were there but that is by far from the norm. 20 years of doing this stuff has taught me that if nothing else.

Edit: And I (nor any other automation engineer that I know of) has ever said that automation was the sole reason for increased output as well as declining workers either....but there has never been a case of my 20 years of working with hundreds of them has there been one that stated that automation simply shifted people around without replacing them.

This tells it all....

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.

 

[xBiffx]

You've not said anything yet that has proven otherwise. You said people were not being replaced and I (and others) have said that they are and have proven it (I've seen it for 20 years). If there were a straight line (or increasing) in the number of factory workers, I would buy that but there is not and it's simply not just shipping jobs to China and Mexico.

Again, you might have been an automation engineer at one company that was constantly expanding while you were there but that is by far from the norm. 20 years of doing this stuff has taught me that if nothing else.

You are dense as hell. I was talking specifically about the misconception in your last post, the ones that I just got done correcting. Please try and keep up.

Edit: And I (nor any other automation engineer that I know of) has ever said that automation was the sole reason for increased output as well as declining workers either....but there has never been a case of my 20 years of working with hundreds of them has there been one that stated that automation simply shifted people around without replacing them.

This tells it all....

Then why did you say I said automation wasn't part of the reason for increased output and declining workers? You've spent this whole time trying to disprove me, you haven't. All the while not even looking at the story in the OP. What is going on in that story isn't happening, not yet. That was and is my whole point. You've been trying to tell me I'm wrong about something that I never said. Well done.

Humans are not getting replaced left and right in vast numbers by automation. Unemployment isn't going way up because of this either. Automation isn't going to be the downfall of the economy because of loss of jobs. People are still going to be employed even with automation. Do us all a favor and at least look at the link in the OP, please. Then maybe you might see where I was coming from with that statement you quoted.

 

[Engineer]

Then you need to learn how to write what you are thinking as it couldn't be any more clear to the people reading this thread as to what this statement meant....

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.

It's pretty hard to take those statements any other way than face value, Jr.

 

[xBiffx]

Then you need to learn how to write what you are thinking as it couldn't be any more clear to the people reading this thread as to what this statement meant....



It's pretty hard to take those statements any other way than face value, Jr.

If you would take things in context like, you know, by reading the story in the OP instead of being a giant douchebag then perhaps you might be able to see what this thread is about.

You and I are able to discuss this because we both have jobs due to automation. The news story is trying to make it seem like countless people are/are going to be unemployed due to automation and that it can be be possible the reason for increasing unemployment. Fact is that is not true today. Plenty of people are employed because of automation and automation directly replacing people happens on a limited scale and won't be the cause for mass layoffs and unemployment anytime soon.

Like I said, if you would look that the link in the OP, you might have some context, ass.

A lot of your rebuttal has been, by your own descriptions, based on ignorance. Not only did you say you didn't watch the story but you also indicated you don't seem to have a grasp on the justification for automation. Its not about replacing people. That happens, without a doubt, but those people take on other tasks. Many, many times automation fulfills a simple task that is only part of an entire operation. By it doing one task, human workers are able to focus on the other, less automation friendly tasks to complete the operation. So they still have a job, but now it has changed focus. This has been my experience, like I said.

Your experiences and mine seem to be quite different with regards to automation, that much we can, I think, agree on. Now if your experiences were the norm and happened to the extent that the story makes it seem, we would be seeing a lot more automation companies in the lead for companies with the most revenue. Facts are they aren't because replacing people with automation isn't commonplace, yet. Its not happening to a degree that would cause any significant change in unemployment or the economy with regards to the job market.

That is the entire point of this thread. Not that automation isn't happening, not that there aren't job being replaced by it. But to what extent entire jobs and therefore workers are being completely displaced by automation to the point where they are adding to unemployment.

 

[Engineer]

You and I are able to discuss this because we both have jobs due to automation.

Like I said, if you would look that the link in the OP, you might have some context, ass.

Since you have decided to resort to name calling, I'll go on record as stating that I don't believe half of the first statement that I quoted and bolded above.

You need to edit your above statements (that I have quoted earlier) since they apparently don't represent what you are trying to say.

(oh, and people are being replaced and let go by automation).

 

[xBiffx]

Since you have decided to resort to name calling, I'll go on record as stating that I don't believe half of the first statement that I quoted and bolded above.

You need to edit your above statements (that I have quoted earlier) since they apparently don't represent what you are trying to say.

(oh, and people are being replaced and let go by automation).

I wasn't the one who started calling people Jr. I simply responded in kind. You really are an ass.

Oh wait, I'm sure Jr. was meant as a term of endearment. Sure thing.

I am sure people are being replaced but not in numbers worth worrying about. The topic of the thread, after all.

 

[Engineer]

I wasn't the one who started calling people Jr. I simply responded in kind. You really are an ass.

Oh wait, I'm sure Jr. was meant as a term of endearment. Sure thing.

I am sure people are being replaced but not in numbers worth worrying about. The topic of the thread, after all.

Opinions vary.

 

[xBiffx]

Opinions vary.

One more thing we can agree on.

 

[WelshBloke]

I find it very hard to believe that automation isn't putting people out of work.

Just look at a modern car plant compared to one from 30 years ago.

 

[xBiffx]

I find it very hard to believe that automation isn't putting people out of work.

Just look at a modern car plant compared to one from 30 years ago.

It isn't really happening to a large extent, even in car plants.

http://www.economist.com/node/21552897

Most of that article is exactly what I've been saying.

Key parts:

Yet manufacturing will still need people, if not so many in the factory itself. All these automated machines require someone to service them and tell them what to do. Some machine operators will become machine minders, which often calls for a broader range of skills. And certain tasks, such as assembling components, remain too fiddly for robots to do well, which is why assembly is often subcontracted to low-wage countries.

Industrial robots are getting better at assembly, but they are expensive and need human experts to set them up (who can cost more than the robot). They have a long way to go before they can replace people in many areas of manufacturing. Investing in robots can be worthwhile for mass manufacturers like carmakers, who remain the biggest users of such machines, but even in highly automated car factories people still do most of the final assembly. And for small and medium-sized businesses robots are generally too costly and too inflexible.

But the next generation of robots will be different. Not only will they be cheaper and easier to set up, they will work with people rather than replacing them.

As Toyota discovered with lean manufacturing, production-line workers, given the chance, can come up with plenty of good ideas to improve productivity. If people on the factory floor or in workshops are provided with easy-to-use robots they can become more productive, says Mr Brooks. Bring together these new robots with innovative manufacturing technologies, and you could get a manufacturing renaissance.

 

[Doppel]

I continue to believe that the notion that automation will free people from their menial tasks and let them flower into super knowledge workers belies the reality that a great portion of the work force is made up not only of unskilled people but unskillable people.

Given that automation has clearly replaced jobs, it's only by virtue of the fact other jobs exist and/or have been made that the person replaced is still employed (and obviously they are not always--many technical implementations are done to reduce head-count and I have worked on one myself with that as a specific selling point).

So the question comes down to: As automation replaced the jobs that exist now, can we be sure there will always be enough new jobs--that the same replaced people can do--so that they will not be unemployed? I don't think we can say this at all. Automation goes for low hanging fruit first. As it goes for higher fruit I think the poorly educated or competent people will struggle further.

 

[Matt1970]

It isn't really happening to a large extent, even in car plants.

http://www.economist.com/node/21552897

Most of that article is exactly what I've been saying.

Key parts:

You are right, workers aren't being replaced....

 

[sportage]

Robots flipping burgers. Well... there u go $7.50 an hour fast food employee.
And besides, no one will be needed to "repair" robots.
Cheap electronics are disposable. More so every day.
When one burger flipping robot screws up, the others will simply drag it to the dumpster.
Repairing robots?
Nice try.

 

[xBiffx]

You are right, workers aren't being replaced....

Robots do some jobs, humans do others. Sometimes they work in tandem with one another. Point is, robots aren't putting people out of a job at a worrisome rate like the link in the OP makes it seem.

 

[BoberFett]

It's utterly ridiculous to think that technology hasn't eliminated jobs by the hundreds of millions. I can't believe anybody could say that with a straight face. Sure, those people are now working in other fields created, but the original job was most definitely eliminated.

As recent as 150 years ago, the world was agrarian, with the vast majority of people lives dedicated to making food. According to Wikipedia, 70-80% of the US workers were farmers in 1870. So it took 30 million farmers to feed 40 million Americans. There are now only a few million agriculture workers that feed 300+ million Americans along with who knows how many other people around the world.

But you're right, technology hasn't eliminated any jobs at all...

 

[mshan]

Amazon warehouse model: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor

Which company's car lines are those pictures (Chrysler or European auto plant, where there is still tremendous resistance against needed restructuring and removal of excess capacity), and what is their cost basis vs. more automated assembly lines?




Larry Kudlow: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?play=1&video=3000197626 (also easy to forget that even Obama's advisors told him not to restructure auto industry because of political risks of effort failing at the time) Former GM exec says U. S. automakers, after forced restructuring with other choice being bankruptcy, are now competitive with any car manufacturer around the world...

 

[fskimospy]

The end goal of technology is 100% unemployment. Using tech to eliminate jobs is a GOOD thing, because it means we have found a way to achieve the same ends more cheaply, quickly, or efficiently.

The issues we are talking about here is how we as a society deal with that technological disruption. It is where social safety nets come in, among other things.

 

[Engineer]

Amazon warehouse model: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor

I forgot about the Amazon thing. I worked (briefly) for a warehouse automation builder that built "stacker cranes" that would automatically store and retrieve pallets of material. It would retrieve whole pallets and send them on an automated conveyor downstairs and would retrieve pallets that needed partial pulls of items (pickers) to the upstairs conveyors (once completed, the picker hit a button to send the pallet back to the shelf). Not only that, it would weigh and measure the pallets (for both height and to make sure they were not leaning).

These units were fast, could stack past 6 stories tall and could go 2 deep on pallets on shelves (each side) of over 250 feet long. The pallets could weigh up to 3,000 pounds each. When the pallet was empty, it would stack them and then send a full 'rack' of pallets out the conveyor system to be reused. The only forklifts were loading and unloading trucks to and from the shipping conveyor. No bodies needed to move the stuff around the warehouse.

All data was barcode scanned and recorded in the various warehouse databases. The warehouse software and database also initiated customer orders and pulled the pallets for shipping or picking.

WWW.INTERLAKEMECALUX.COM for videos.

 

[xBiffx]

It's utterly ridiculous to think that technology hasn't eliminated jobs by the hundreds of millions. I can't believe anybody could say that with a straight face. Sure, those people are now working in other fields created, but the original job was most definitely eliminated.

As recent as 150 years ago, the world was agrarian, with the vast majority of people lives dedicated to making food. According to Wikipedia, 70-80% of the US workers were farmers in 1870. So it took 30 million farmers to feed 40 million Americans. There are now only a few million agriculture workers that feed 300+ million Americans along with who knows how many other people around the world.

But you're right, technology hasn't eliminated any jobs at all...

You're talking about a long period of time and not really about directly eliminating jobs like the OP link is. Of course, over time jobs are not going to be created because of technology. The OP link is more talking about an acute change in that a piece of automation in put in place and immediately a job is eliminated because of it. That just doesn't happen on a big enough scale to affect the job market and unemployment overall. Now, as companies increase technology and people innovate, jobs are going to be offset by this in that less hiring is going to happen. But again, that is going to take time and isn't going to the case where a job is immediately eliminated due to technology for the most part.

Perhaps this difference is a bit nuanced (I don't think so) but there is a difference between future jobs not being there and current jobs being eliminated due to technology.

No one, especially myself, ever said that technology hasn't reduced the amount of jobs along the way but its appears that there are many people here trying to make that case. Of course it has and will continue to do so but its not the reason for current unemployment or large unemployment spikes either. That kind of change takes time. Society is going to be able to adjust to that kind of transition and its not a reason for alarm at this point.

 

[Doppel]

Point is, robots aren't putting people out of a job at a worrisome rate like the link in the OP makes it seem.

To me it is a worrisome rate. Although it's not gutted employment levels yet (assuming it ever does--I think it will), the trend is moving in that direction. We're in early times for it.

Here is something interesting to do. Google "unemployment 1900".

1890-2011

Total unemployment is basically unchanged in the past hundred+ years, in large part because it was so nasty during the first half of 20th century.

1950-2010

Uh-oh. Now that isn't pretty is it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/US_Unemployment_measures.svg

1950-2010 duration unemployment

Again, very ugly:

Bobber's example of farming is sublime. Mechanization of farming has absolutely destroyed it as a living. Compared to the percentage of people who used to farm virtually nobody does. A single guy with a tractor now does what used to take dozens of people.

And so those people moved onto building cars. But then robots stole some of that work.

Technology will continually steal jobs, just as it always has done. This only does not result in mass unemployment as long as the newly-displaced workers are agile enough to find employment in something not yet automated. I believe that in the face of exponentially more competent technology automation will become more capable, and it will replace work faster; newly made jobs will exist for a shorter period of time before a machine replaces them.

The end goal of technology is 100% unemployment. Using tech to eliminate jobs is a GOOD thing, because it means we have found a way to achieve the same ends more cheaply, quickly, or efficiently.

The issues we are talking about here is how we as a society deal with that technological disruption. It is where social safety nets come in, among other things.

I more or less hold this view, too. There will be a lot of difficulties along the way, but imagine if the average age of retirement was 40 and, thanks to robot doctors, we're all living to 120

 

[Doppel]

Point is, robots aren't putting people out of a job at a worrisome rate like the link in the OP makes it seem.

To me it is a worrisome rate. Although it's not gutted employment levels yet (assuming it ever does--I think it will), the trend is moving in that direction. We're in early times for it.

Here is something interesting to do. Google "unemployment 1900".

1890-2011

Total unemployment is basically unchanged in the past hundred+ years, in large part because it was so nasty during the first half of 20th century.

1950-2010

Uh-oh. Now that isn't pretty is it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/US_Unemployment_measures.svg

1950-2010 duration unemployment

Again, very ugly:

Bobber's example of farming is sublime. Mechanization of farming has absolutely destroyed it as a living. Compared to the percentage of people who used to farm virtually nobody does. A single guy with a tractor now does what used to take dozens of people.

And so those people moved onto building cars. But then robots stole some of that work.

Technology will continually steal jobs, just as it always has done. This only does not result in mass unemployment as long as the newly-displaced workers are agile enough to find employment in something not yet automated. I believe that in the face of exponentially more competent technology automation will become more capable, and it will replace work faster; newly made jobs will exist for a shorter period of time before a machine replaces them.

The end goal of technology is 100% unemployment. Using tech to eliminate jobs is a GOOD thing, because it means we have found a way to achieve the same ends more cheaply, quickly, or efficiently.

The issues we are talking about here is how we as a society deal with that technological disruption. It is where social safety nets come in, among other things.

I more or less hold this view, too. There will be a lot of difficulties along the way, but imagine if the average age of retirement was 40 and, thanks to robot doctors, we're all living to 120