Lowes replacing (some) workers with robots

[Belegost]

One per store. The chances of multiple units being out of commission at the same time is unlikely. Let's say the store must be staffed with like 15 robots at a time. And, they buy something like 17 and one service tech. That would be plenty. The operating cost of staffing workers for the entire amount of hours the store is open, can't be that much. And, if they are more helpful than the standard minimum wage worker at Lowe's, I'll take it.

Well, in the near term, you'll need one floor manager working at any given time to deal with unexpected issues (say attempted theft, or vandalism) mostly due to a psychological expectation of being able to deal with a human in person. That person would be trained to do basic diagnostics on a malfunctioning unit, and send the results to a regional service center that Lowe's contracts with.

For software issues they will be able to remote into the unit and apply patches/settings changes as appropriate. For bigger problems they will just ship a replacement unit to the store, pickup the malfunctioning unit and take it to a centralized refurbishing factory.

The advantage here is that the refurbishing factory can itself be highly automated or located in a low wage area, and as automated vehicles become available the pickup/delivery process automated.

In the longer term even the floor manager would be replaced with a telepresence robot operated when necessary by someone at a regional support center - then the ratio of human workers to stores can become less than 1. As long as the telepresence bot is capable of physically moving a dead unit to the shipping dock it would be sufficient.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I'll no longer shop at Lowe's the moment I see one in store. And I'll let management and corporate know why I'll never shop there again.

 

[Engineer]

Not surprised by the responses in this thread. The same people who love this kind of stuff are the same people that would rather be shot than to support all of those people losing jobs because of stuff like this. Oh well, let all of them go to college and become.....er....let them eat cake.

I'm sure they can all go out and find other jobs. No problems.

/thread

 

[Engineer]

We've had this argument before. No, it simply isn't always the goal. You should know better.

So now Lowes has to hire people to support these robots. People most certainly making more than the cashier or floor sales associate the robot may have replaced. Don't see how it leading to less people working or less money in the economy for that matter.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Says the guy who says automation doesn't replace people, only enhances them. Sure thing there skippy.

You can reply but I shall no longer reply because you're idea that automation doesn't replace people is so far out there that NASA can't reach it.

 

[Fern]

I'm wondering where people threatening boycott will go shop if Lowes/Home Dept employ robots. Most of our local hardware stores etc closed up after they opened.

Fern

 

[xBiffx]

LOLOLOLOLOLOL! Says the guy who says automation doesn't replace people, only enhances them. Sure thing there skippy.

You can reply but I shall no longer reply because you're idea that automation doesn't replace people is so far out there that NASA can't reach it.

I've got over a decade of automation experience that says otherwise. There is an increasing trend to collaborative robotics lately too.

You are the hilarious one here.

 

[Engineer]

I've got over a decade of automation experience that says otherwise. There is an increasing trend to collaborative robotics lately too.

You are the hilarious one here.

I've got two decades that says exactly what I'm saying. I've got two purchase orders for $350,000+ total to replace 8 workers (or more) with a payback period of 18 to 24 montsh. So I guess those companies and the ones that I've went directly into for years and reading their justification for capital expenditures of CUTTING HEADS are just a minority? LOL.

I've seen it from both ends (working for the company doing the cutting and working for the company providing the automation). I'll also go on record that I'm not saying that ALL automation is causing people to be laid off. If it's a new factory or a new line being added, of course there are going to be people added.

You've shown nothing that you know anything about automation, period. Not one damn thing (from the last thread either). Show us your stuff big boy.

 

[xBiffx]

I've got two decades that says exactly what I'm saying. I've got two purchase orders for $350,000+ total to replace 8 workers (or more) with a payback period of 18 to 24 montsh. So I guess those companies and the ones that I've went directly into for years and reading their justification for capital expenditures of CUTTING HEADS are just a minority? LOL.

I've seen it from both ends (working for the company doing the cutting and working for the company providing the automation).

You've shown nothing that you know anything about automation, period. Not one damn thing (from the last thread either). Show us your stuff big boy.

You are the one claiming automation is always a certain way, not me. All I've said is that its not always the case for automation to replace people. I don't have to show you anything.

Stop acting like you know everything, cause guess what, you don't. And neither do I.

 

[Engineer]

You are the one claiming automation is always a certain way, not me. All I've said is that its not always the case for automation to replace people. I don't have to show you anything.

Stop acting like you know everything, cause guess what, you don't. And neither do I.

Heh, from where I'm sitting, you don't know anything about automating anything.

I don't know everything, but I'm leaps and bounds above you when it comes to automation from what I've seen on these forums and again, you've shown not an ounce of proof otherwise.

 

[Belegost]

Not surprised by the responses in this thread. The same people who love this kind of stuff are the same people that would rather be shot than to support all of those people losing jobs because of stuff like this. Oh well, let all of them go to college and become.....er....let them eat cake.

I'm sure they can all go out and find other jobs. No problems.

/thread

Explain how the alternative of keeping people working low wage retail positions in order to eke out a living is preferable. This is like getting upset because the combine harvester put a lot of scything laborers out of work.

There is certainly a strong question of whether there will be sufficient employment opportunities in other areas for those displaced. Historically this has been so as each labor-saving, productivity-increasing technology has been incorporated.

I happen to believe we are approaching a time where that may not be so true, as largely automated factories will produce automation devices, and automated systems to monitor them for repairs that are done in largely automated facilities. Maybe new areas of economic development will arise that pick up the workers - I can't predict.

However the possibility of large portions of the current labor force becoming useless in the next century is why I support the idea of a basic income. (Among a number of other reasons.)

 

[Engineer]

Explain how the alternative of keeping people working low wage retail positions in order to eke out a living is preferable.

Simple. It's not, only because the better paying jobs of yesterday's middle class have already been offshored. I suppose it's better to have those people with no job. Explain how it's better to have even more millions of people, who obviously aren't capable of going to college to be the next big scientist, programmer, engineer, etc., completely unemployed because even the McService jobs that replaced their once good middle class jobs are now being replaced? If you don't mind a rise in socialism (or crime should these people get to the point of not being able to afford food), I guess it's OK.

I just love a declining standard of living and declining wages for the US worker. Makes me feel warm and tingly all over.

 

[xBiffx]

Heh, from where I'm sitting, you don't know anything about automating anything.

I don't know everything, but I'm leaps and bounds above you when it comes to automation from what I've seen on these forums and again, you've shown not an ounce of proof otherwise.

Keep stroking yourself.

 

[Engineer]

Keep stroking yourself.

Heh. Surely you have something to share? I'll be happy to eat a big ole serving of crow, even served cold. All you have to do is post what you've got.

 

[smackababy]

Simple. It's not, only because the better paying jobs of yesterday's middle class have already been offshored. I suppose it's better to have those people with no job. Explain how it's better to have even more millions of people, who obviously aren't capable of going to college to be the next big scientist, programmer, engineer, etc., completely unemployed because even the McService jobs that replaced their once good middle class jobs are now being replaced? If you don't mind a rise in socialism (or crime should these people get to the point of not being able to afford food), I guess it's OK.

I just love a declining standard of living and declining wages for the US worker. Makes me feel warming and tingly all over.

It's simple; we skill the Poorman.

/Joker voice

 

[sandorski]

Simple. It's not, only because the better paying jobs of yesterday's middle class have already been offshored. I suppose it's better to have those people with no job. Explain how it's better to have even more millions of people, who obviously aren't capable of going to college to be the next big scientist, programmer, engineer, etc., completely unemployed because even the McService jobs that replaced their once good middle class jobs are now being replaced? If you don't mind a rise in socialism (or crime should these people get to the point of not being able to afford food), I guess it's OK.

I just love a declining standard of living and declining wages for the US worker. Makes me feel warm and tingly all over.

This is really the issue. It almost seems like the goal of "Capitalism" is to prove Karl Marx correct. That being, grossly simplified, that Capitalism taken to its' logical conclusion would destroy itself.

 

[xBiffx]

Heh. Surely you have something to share? I'll be happy to eat a big ole serving of crow, even served cold. All you have to do is post what you've got.

I'm not the one making ridiculous claims here.

I imagine the goal isn't to replace employees

Buwhahahahahahahahahahahahaah!

Are you serious? That's always the goal.

And you have yet to back that up.

 

[Engineer]

I'm not the one making ridiculous claims here.



And you have yet to back that up.

OK, I'll back off the 100% goal for ALL automation replacing EVERY job that it touches, but in the majority of cases that automation is brought into an existing factory or facility, it is to replace jobs. Can it be brought in to enhance quality? Sure. Can it be brought in for new or expanding business? Sure. However, you have suggested that automation doesn't replace jobs, or so it seems. If you are not suggesting that automation replace jobs, then I'm wrong and will apologize. If it's your assertion that automation 'only' enhances production and doesn't replace workers, you're flat out wrong.

Now what is ridiculous claims of mine are you talking about?

Do you honestly think that Lowe's is going to spend $50,000 on robots and keep the same number of employees or even expand the number of employees?

I'll still go on record and say that you don't know shit about automation. I have my crow frozen in the freezer if you decide that you would like to warm it up by providing something to spark the fire.

 

[xBiffx]

OK, I'll back off the 100% goal for ALL automation replacing EVERY job that it touches, but in the majority of cases that automation is brought into an existing factory or facility, it is to replace jobs. Can it be brought in to enhance quality? Sure. Can it be brought in for new or expanding business? Sure. However, you have suggested that automation doesn't replace jobs, or so it seems. If you are not suggesting that automation replace jobs, then I'm wrong and will apologize. If it's your assertion that automation 'only' enhances production and doesn't replace workers, you're flat out wrong.

Now what is ridiculous claims of mine are you talking about?

Do you honestly think that Lowe's is going to spend $50,000 on robots and keep the same number of employees or even expand the number of employees?

I'll still go on record and say that you don't know shit about automation. I have my crow frozen in the freezer if you decide that you would like to warm it up by providing something to spark the fire.

Keep stroking. At least you can admit you were wrong. I still find it hilarious that you think you know everything. I'm especially amused at the chest pumping over saying I don't know shit about automation.

 

[Engineer]

Keep stroking. At least you can admit you were wrong. I still find it hilarious that you think you know everything. I'm especially amused at the chest pumping over saying I don't know shit about automation.

I admit I exaggerated, not wrong.

Based on your postings here about your ideas of automation and what it does and does not do and who it replaces and does not replace, it's not hard to draw that conclusion. I'm not the only one here that has done so. I've even posted that I'll gladly and publicly eat crow and apologize should you throw me a nugget that you now that you're talking about.

How many people is this project replacing:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7jhllluvek35gg/IMG_3270.MOV?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i0j75rfcqp0bbpu/IMG_3273.MOV?dl=0

(My current project)

(Hint: It's not zero).

 

[xBiffx]

I admit I exaggerated, not wrong.

Based on your postings here about your ideas of automation and what it does and does not do and who it replaces and does not replace, it's not hard to draw that conclusion. I'm not the only one here that has done so. I've even posted that I'll gladly and publicly eat crow and apologize should you throw me a nugget that you now that you're talking about.

How many people is this project replacing:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7jhllluvek35gg/IMG_3270.MOV?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/i0j75rfcqp0bbpu/IMG_3273.MOV?dl=0

(My current project)

(Hint: It's not zero).

My employer pays me six figures as a Senior Automation Engineer. They are a major producer of GMO seeds here in the midwest. I'm sure they would be interested to hear how I know nothing about automation and why they keep increasing my pay for knowing nothing about my job. My boss (who has been doing automation for the better part of 25 years) is also extremely entertained by your position.

I don't know what to tell you other than I live quite comfortably because of what I know about automation. The fact remains, there are many reasons to automate.

 

[Engineer]

My employer pays me six figures as a Senior Automation Engineer. They are a major producer of GMO seeds here in the midwest. I'm sure they would be interested to hear how I know nothing about automation and why they keep increasing my pay for knowing nothing about my job. My boss (who has been doing automation for the better part of 25 years) is also extremely entertained by your position.

I don't know what to tell you other than I live quite comfortably because of what I know about automation. The fact remains, there are many reasons to automate.

Well I certainly hope that you are a better automation engineer that what you show on here, especially when it comes to preconceived notion that automation isn't to replace workers (majority of the time). Otherwise, your employer is getting ripped off (assuming you are what you say you are and I don't have any reason to believe that you are).

 

[Belegost]

Simple. It's not, only because the better paying jobs of yesterday's middle class have already been offshored. I suppose it's better to have those people with no job. Explain how it's better to have even more millions of people, who obviously aren't capable of going to college to be the next big scientist, programmer, engineer, etc., completely unemployed because even the McService jobs that replaced their once good middle class jobs are now being replaced? If you don't mind a rise in socialism (or crime should these people get to the point of not being able to afford food), I guess it's OK.

I just love a declining standard of living and declining wages for the US worker. Makes me feel warm and tingly all over.

Depends on what you mean by socialism.

The truth is that productivity per worker has been rising fast since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the advent of mass automation is going to drive that through the roof.

Society must continue the conversation on how we distribute the results of that productivity, and along with that how we value humans, and what work means in a world where basic subsistence can be covered by the labor of a rather small fraction of the population.

I feel that suppressing technology that would displace a lot of low wage menial labor leads in the direction of a future society where people do busy work, grinding away at things that machines would do better to fit outdated beliefs of the "If a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat" type.

I would prefer that we squarely see a large number of structurally unemployed people forcing a situation where we have to confront this, rather than drag these people on in marginally useful employment. Employment which allows the topic to get swept under the rug, because they have "a" job, while needlessly grinding millions of lives in meaningless toil.

Returning to the socialism question - as I said, I support a basic income. To my mind it is the least socialist way to distribute the production of automation that also avoids massive levels of suffering, everyone gets their basic needs covered, and has the opportunity to find ways to engage in the economy to gain more. This takes away the specter of homelessness and destitution that forces people into working under otherwise intolerable situations, without taking away the incentive to work (at least for most people the desire for more than the most basic living exists.)

 

[Engineer]

Depends on what you mean by socialism.

The truth is that productivity per worker has been rising fast since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the advent of mass automation is going to drive that through the roof.

Society must continue the conversation on how we distribute the results of that productivity, and along with that how we value humans, and what work means in a world where basic subsistence can be covered by the labor of a rather small fraction of the population.

I feel that suppressing technology that would displace a lot of low wage menial labor leads in the direction of a future society where people do busy work, grinding away at things that machines would do better to fit outdated beliefs of the "If a man doesn't work, he doesn't eat" type.

I would prefer that we squarely see a large number of structurally unemployed people forcing a situation where we have to confront this, rather than drag these people on in marginally useful employment. Employment which allows the topic to get swept under the rug, because they have "a" job, while needlessly grinding millions of lives in meaningless toil.

Returning to the socialism question - as I said, I support a basic income. To my mind it is the least socialist way to distribute the production of automation that also avoids massive levels of suffering, everyone gets their basic needs covered, and has the opportunity to find ways to engage in the economy to gain more. This takes away the specter of homelessness and destitution that forces people into working under otherwise intolerable situations, without taking away the incentive to work (at least for most people the desire for more than the most basic living exists.)

You want Star Trek to become a reality! :biggrin:

As for your 'basic income' idea, it would be blasted by those people still working. Just look in this forum day in and day out about any type of social programs given to people who don't work (i.e. don't earn them). I suspect that we will see lots of unrest (and possibly riots) if this goes to the point where more and more people are getting less and less, especially in terms of job opportunities and income.

 

[dmcowen674]

My employer pays me six figures as a Senior Automation Engineer. They are a major producer of GMO seeds here in the midwest. I'm sure they would be interested to hear how I know nothing about automation and why they keep increasing my pay for knowing nothing about my job. My boss (who has been doing automation for the better part of 25 years) is also extremely entertained by your position.

I don't know what to tell you other than I live quite comfortably because of what I know about automation. The fact remains, there are many reasons to automate.

Explains a lot about your insane posts.

You and your employer are pure evil.

 

[Belegost]

You want Star Trek to become a reality! :biggrin:

As for your 'basic income' idea, it would be blasted by those people still working. Just look in this forum day in and day out about any type of social programs given to people who don't work (i.e. don't earn them). I suspect that we will see lots of unrest (and possibly riots) if this goes to the point where more and more people are getting less and less, especially in terms of job opportunities and income.

It's certainly going to take effort to get it into society, though to be clear it's not my idea, it has been suggested by much more informed and relevant minds than mine, such as Milton Friedman, and the original patriot Thomas Paine. The advantage I see as far as acceptability is that it is given to everyone. It's not money for not working, or for getting knocked up and squeezing out a kid with no dad, or faking a disability to sit around watching soap operas. Everyone gets it.

As for increasing unrest and struggle - I don't see any way around that. The lessons of the industrial revolution show that changing the fundamental way society works (going from agriculturally focused to manufacturing focused) is not easy. However, I think that dragging things out will just mean that much more suffering in the future when things reach an unbearable point.

As for the Star Trek, yea, I'm probably optimistic, but as a fellow engineer I would like to believe that the work we do pushing new technology boundaries will have a positive effect on future generations.