Is there such a thing as division of labor that works too well?

[her209]

Say for example, would it ever be the case where an assembler for 8 hours a day, all they do is screw a nut onto a threaded bolt? If so, how much would you pay them (assume no minimum wage)?

 

[drinkmorejava]

The minimum efficiency wage in order to keep them from not leaving as having to hire and setup new workers is annoying and has certain implicit and explicit costs.

 

[chrisms]

A job that simple could probably be done by machine. I don't really understand the question.

 

[mchammer]

eleveny billion

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: chrisms
A job that simple could probably be done by machine. I don't really understand the question.

A machine costs money to engineer, design, and build. And who would build/assemble such a machine?

EDIT: Also, a machine also needs to be maintained.

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chrisms
A job that simple could probably be done by machine. I don't really understand the question.

A machine costs money to engineer, design, and build. And who would build/assemble such a machine?

EDIT: Also, a machine also needs to be maintained.

I still don't understand what you're asking specifically. It seems to depend on too many factors to determined. A machine to screw on bolts is not too expensive to engineer, design, build, and maintain, if the quantity of screwed on bolts demanded was high enough.

 

[drinkmorejava]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chrisms
A job that simple could probably be done by machine. I don't really understand the question.

A machine costs money to engineer, design, and build. And who would build/assemble such a machine?

EDIT: Also, a machine also needs to be maintained.

The engineering, design, and building is pretty irrelevant to you as the unit has already been created. And I can guarantee you that machine will be cheaper to buy and maintain than paying someone a livable wage...unless you can find someone to work for a dollar a day...which probably wouldn't be all that hard.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: her209
A machine costs money to engineer, design, and build. And who would build/assemble such a machine?

EDIT: Also, a machine also needs to be maintained.

/thinks about the auto manufacturing industry

errrmm....if it was so hard to mechanize simple jobs, no one would do it.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chrisms
A job that simple could probably be done by machine. I don't really understand the question.

A machine costs money to engineer, design, and build. And who would build/assemble such a machine?

EDIT: Also, a machine also needs to be maintained.

I still don't understand what you're asking specifically. It seems to depend on too many factors to determined. A machine to screw on bolts is not too expensive to engineer, design, build, and maintain, if the quantity of screwed on bolts demanded was high enough.

Less expensive compared to what?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: drinkmorejava

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: chrisms
A job that simple could probably be done by machine. I don't really understand the question.

A machine costs money to engineer, design, and build. And who would build/assemble such a machine?

EDIT: Also, a machine also needs to be maintained.

The engineering, design, and building is pretty irrelevant to you as the unit has already been created. And I can guarantee you that machine will be cheaper to buy and maintain than paying someone a livable wage...unless you can find someone to work for a dollar a day...which probably wouldn't be all that hard.

So your answer to the original question would be $1.00 a day?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: her209
A machine costs money to engineer, design, and build. And who would build/assemble such a machine?

EDIT: Also, a machine also needs to be maintained.

/thinks about the auto manufacturing industry

errrmm....if it was so hard to mechanize simple jobs, no one would do it.

I don't know how hard it is or isn't. The mechanization of the assembly process made sense because it costs less to produce the product and thus more profit can be made or it can be sold for less. But the reason it costs less is because the companies had to pay their workers more, minimum wages, to do the same assembly motion. But assume no minimum wage, how much would one pay for this "skilless" job?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: her209
A machine costs money to engineer, design, and build. And who would build/assemble such a machine?

EDIT: Also, a machine also needs to be maintained.

/thinks about the auto manufacturing industry

errrmm....if it was so hard to mechanize simple jobs, no one would do it.

I don't know how hard it is or isn't. The mechanization of the assembly process made sense because it costs less to produce the product and thus more profit can be made or it can be sold for less. But the reason it costs less is because the companies had to pay their workers more, minimum wages, to do the same assembly motion. But assume no minimum wage, how much would one pay for this "skilless" job?

Ah, that's the question! OK, the answer is: Too many variables. Depends on a job. Example: Let's say that the machine costs $300,000, lasts 20 years at least, and can do a single assembly subroutine (like fastening a screw) every second, 24/7, with a 95% operational cycle and combined power and maintenance costs of $5 a day.

Do the math, turn that into a number of unskilled full-time jobs, and there you have your minimum wage. I had to do way too many of those calculations in my classes, so I'm not going to do it now, but you'll find that the minimum wage you get explains why even in China, there's a lot of mechanization in the factories.

 

[Dirigible]

Mr. Bucket (Charlie of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's dad) sat all day screwing the caps onto tubes of toothpaste. He barely got paid enough to put watery cabbage soup on the table.

I agree with the post above me, though. Automation would probably be cheaper - no one would work cheap enough to displace the machine for such a simple task.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Dirigible
Mr. Bucket (Charlie of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory's dad) sat all day screwing the caps onto tubes of toothpaste. He barely got paid enough to put watery cabbage soup on the table.

I agree with the post above me, though. Automation would probably be cheaper - no one would work cheap enough to displace the machine for such a simple task.

So they'd rather not get paid at all?

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: her209
Say for example, would it ever be the case where an assembler for 8 hours a day, all they do is screw a nut onto a threaded bolt? If so, how much would you pay them (assume no minimum wage)?

That is an incredibly obtuse question that is truly unanswerable to any actionable level of certainty given the information provided.

 

[Malak]

Originally posted by: chrisms
A job that simple could probably be done by machine. I don't really understand the question.

I work in the most advanced cabinet manufacturer plant in America, and there is a job just like this. The only robots we have are there for transportation of material.