Lowes replacing (some) workers with robots

[bshole]

LOL.

A luddite working in technology.... ROFLMFAO!

Technological unemployment is unemployment primarily caused by technological change. Early concern about technological unemployment was exemplified by the Luddites, textile workers who feared that automated looms would allow more productivity with fewer workers, leading to mass unemployment. But while automation did lead to textile workers being laid off, new jobs in other industries developed. Due to this shift of labor from automated industries to non-automated industries, technological unemployment has been called the Luddite fallacy.[

 

[Engineer]

It's quite simple, especially in the case of Lowes. Say they want to eliminate three positions (because they stated that as the reason to buy robots) so they purchase three of these robots. Robots don't come out of nowhere.

1. Someone has to design it.
2. Someone has to build/pack it.
3. Someone has to sell it.
4. Someone has to install it.
5. Someone has to support it.

So they eliminated three jobs, but they essentially employed (at least part time) five other people to do so (probably more, I over simplified). And generally speaking, those five people are probably going to make combined 5-10x what the three original people did combined. So now you introduced 5-10x the buying power into the economy. Not seeing where automation is going to destroy jobs or cripple the economy there. Of course, things aren't going to be 1 to 1 as far as job numbers, but in terms of salaries, you've got a net increase almost every time when changing a low skill, low income job out with automation.

Keep in mind, this doesn't even take into account the $ spent on the automation itself either.

1. Someone has to design it. (maybe done here)
2. Someone has to build/pack it. (not here - there are no robots except Baxter built here. I see no reason why the robots from the OP would be built here)
3. Someone has to sell it. (done here)
4. Someone has to install it. (done here)
5. Someone has to support it. (done here)

Now do that at 1,000 stores at 3 people each. Are you saying that there were 3,000 jobs created HERE to replace the 3,000 people lost at the stores? It's not a 1 to 1 relationship. What happens when all of the Lowe's stores have been converted and this new 'team' of employees moves on and automates Home Depot?

The companies are eliminating positions with my current projects are not creating more jobs. They might be keeping mine going but there were no jobs created in those jobs being eliminated.

 

[xBiffx]

Now do that at 1,000 stores at 3 people each. Are you saying that there were 3,000 jobs created HERE to replace the 3,000 people lost at the stores? It's not a 1 to 1 relationship.

The companies are eliminating positions with my current projects are not creating more jobs. They might be keeping mine going but there were no jobs created in those jobs being eliminated.

You are so fricken dumb, and apparently illiterate.

 

[Engineer]

You are so fricken dumb, and apparently illiterate.

So you're back to saying that automation eliminates NO jobs and actually creates more jobs than it destroys (or so you are again suggesting)?

How about you answer the question? If Lowe's does 1,000 stores at 3 people each, are you saying that there will be 3,000 or more jobs created from the automation that helped eliminate those jobs? Yes or no?

 

[xBiffx]

So you're back to saying that automation eliminates NO jobs and actually creates more jobs than it destroys (or so you are again suggesting)?

How about you answer the question? If Lowe's does 1,000 stores at 3 people each, are you saying that there will be 3,000 or more jobs created from the automation that helped eliminate those jobs? Yes or no?

Are you that illiterate?

Are you saying that providing those 3000 instruments with the services I mentioned is still only going to take five people? Like I said, it's not 1 to 1. But the salaries for the people providing for the automation are more than the people the automation is displacing.

I don't usually agree with bshole but this time I do (which speaks volumes). He nailed it with his Luddite reference.

 

[bshole]

So you're back to saying that automation eliminates NO jobs and actually creates more jobs than it destroys (or so you are again suggesting)?

Jesus Christ dude, you don't know this? Good christ, you are one ignorant mofo. This has been scientifically proven fact. You are too fucking lazy to bother looking?

This common sense view is borne out by many economic studies. For example, economists at the Federal Reserve write that, “Productivity grew noticeably faster than usual in the late 1990s, while the unemployment rate fell to levels not seen for more than three decades. This inverse relationship between the two variables also can be seen on several other occasions in the postwar period and leads one to wonder whether there is a causal link between them. The empirical evidence presented here shows that a positive technology shock leads to a reduction in the unemployment rate that persists for several years.” Likewise, in a definitive review of the studies on productivity and employment, the OECD’s Jobs Study: Facts, Analysis, Strategy report stated that, “Technology both eliminates jobs and creates jobs. Generally it destroys lower wage, lower productivity jobs, while it creates jobs that are more productive, high-skill and better paid. Historically, the income-generating effects of new technologies have proved more powerful than the labor-displacing effects: technological progress has been accompanied not only by higher output and productivity, but also by higher overall employment.”

http://www.innovationfiles.org/technology-and-automation-create-not-destroy-jobs/

 

[Engineer]

Are you that illiterate?

Are you saying that providing those 3000 instruments with the services I mentioned is still only going to take five people? Like I said, it's not 1 to 1. But the salaries for the people providing for the automation are more than the people the automation is displacing.

I don't usually agree with bshole but this time I do (which speaks volumes). He nailed it with his Luddite reference.

I never said 5 people, I asked it it would create 3,000 jobs? I never said that it wouldn't create more jobs as more stores are done. And you call me illiterate?

 

[xBiffx]

Jesus Christ dude, you don't know this? Good christ, you are one ignorant mofo. This has been scientifically proven fact. You are too fucking lazy to bother looking?





http://www.innovationfiles.org/technology-and-automation-create-not-destroy-jobs/

He is utterly useless.

But I'm the one who knows dick about automation engineering. :whiste:

 

[michal1980]

Are you that illiterate?

Are you saying that providing those 3000 instruments with the services I mentioned is still only going to take five people? Like I said, it's not 1 to 1. But the salaries for the people providing for the automation are more than the people the automation is displacing.

I don't usually agree with bshole but this time I do (which speaks volumes). He nailed it with his Luddite reference.

seems like MIT guys agree more with Engineer then you

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

or this

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-automation-take-our-jobs/

 

[xBiffx]

I never said 5 people, I asked it it would create 3,000 jobs? I never said that it wouldn't create more jobs are more stores are done. Are you illiterate?

I don't really know for sure. I would think it would be in the high hundreds, maybe low thousands.

I've said, this is the third time, it's not 1 to 1.

 

[Carson Dyle]

I don't understand why you limit your argument to the evils of automation. Why not improvements in any system or procedure that eliminates labor and increases profits?

Better software. Faster computers. Barcode readers. Better designed stores. More streamlined distribution.

Take the latter. Say a company figures that it can eliminate 500 jobs and increase profits by consolidating their ten national distribution centers into eight. Should they be crucified for doing so? Do you think their stockholders will complain? Do you think their customers in California will fight to pay higher prices so those people out in Arkansas and Idaho can keep their jobs?

 

[xBiffx]

seems like MIT guys agree more with Engineer then you

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs/

Funny, history and science/reasearch dictate otherwise. Like I said before, I am sure there will be a time when this is true but not anytime soon.

 

[xBiffx]

DP

 

[BoberFett]

Your comments are getting dumber and dumber. Puts some effort in to it, post some pics and links to meaningless crap like the rest of the trolls that follow you.

Get bent you useless smelly twat.

 

[realibrad]

So you're back to saying that automation eliminates NO jobs and actually creates more jobs than it destroys (or so you are again suggesting)?

How about you answer the question? If Lowe's does 1,000 stores at 3 people each, are you saying that there will be 3,000 or more jobs created from the automation that helped eliminate those jobs? Yes or no?

Show data where an industry has automated and created a net economic negative.

I used the example of farming, but I guess you did not understand.

It used to be that people got up, worked the whole day farming, and went to sleep. These people had very very little free time to work on anything other than farming. New technologies come along, and increase the efficiency of farming. This now means that more food is created with fewer people. This put downward pressure on crop prices, and many people had to leave farming.

If the story stopped there, then holy crap the sky is falling, but, you know just as well as I that is not what ended up happening.

So, those farmers who were most efficient were able to sell their crops for less, and make up the difference in volume. Those who could not compete in farming had to find work elsewhere. But, where could these poor souls work? Sweatshops! But oh no's, Sweatshops are bad, and we all know that right? Yes, Sweatshops are bad... relative to jobs today. Sweatshops were a vast improvement over the farming jobs people once had. But, does the story stop here? God no!

So, just like farming, sweatshops automated and mechanized. So now people have been forced out of farming, and sweatshops. Where ever do these people go? Factories! Again, another improvement when machines took over the shitty jobs. But again, oh no's because here in the US factories are automating and mechanizing too. Where will these workers go?
Nobody knows really. All throughout history, we have seen industries come and go, and its always been good from what I know.

There are people who will lose jobs in some sectors of the economy, as well as they should. To act as if the loss of a few customer service jobs is doom and gloom is stupid.

FYI, Engineer has me blocked, so if someone would be so kind and quote me

 

[xBiffx]

Show data where an industry has automated and created a net economic negative.

I used the example of farming, but I guess you did not understand.

It used to be that people got up, worked the whole day farming, and went to sleep. These people had very very little free time to work on anything other than farming. New technologies come along, and increase the efficiency of farming. This now means that more food is created with fewer people. This put downward pressure on crop prices, and many people had to leave farming.

If the story stopped there, then holy crap the sky is falling, but, you know just as well as I that is not what ended up happening.

So, those farmers who were most efficient were able to sell their crops for less, and make up the difference in volume. Those who could not compete in farming had to find work elsewhere. But, where could these poor souls work? Sweatshops! But oh no's, Sweatshops are bad, and we all know that right? Yes, Sweatshops are bad... relative to jobs today. Sweatshops were a vast improvement over the farming jobs people once had. But, does the story stop here? God no!

So, just like farming, sweatshops automated and mechanized. So now people have been forced out of farming, and sweatshops. Where ever do these people go? Factories! Again, another improvement when machines took over the shitty jobs. But again, oh no's because here in the US factories are automating and mechanizing too. Where will these workers go?
Nobody knows really. All throughout history, we have seen industries come and go, and its always been good from what I know.

There are people who will lose jobs in some sectors of the economy, as well as they should. To act as if the loss of a few customer service jobs is doom and gloom is stupid.

FYI, Engineer has me blocked, so if someone would be so kind and quote me

This

I'll only add that things don't happen in a vacuum as that MIT study would suggest.

 

[Engineer]

Final post in this thread: Enjoy your increasing supply of McService jobs (as has already been shown to be by far the largest percentage of jobs created, especially over the last decade) then, if those aren't eliminated too. Just don't whine about the extra amount of socialism that results from the lowering standard of living and lowering wages, if any wages at all.

/out_of_here

 

[xBiffx]

Final post in this thread: Enjoy your increasing supply of McService jobs (as has already been shown to be by far the largest percentage of jobs created, especially over the last decade) then, if those aren't eliminated too. Just don't whine about the extra amount of socialism that results from the lowering standard of living and lowering wages, if any wages at all.

/out_of_here

Runs and hides from his self pwnage thread. :biggrin:

 

[realibrad]

Final post in this thread: Enjoy your increasing supply of McService jobs (as has already been shown to be by far the largest percentage of jobs created, especially over the last decade) then, if those aren't eliminated too. Just don't whine about the extra amount of socialism that results from the lowering standard of living and lowering wages, if any wages at all.

/out_of_here

Glad to see you start a thread, and then take your ball and go home. Its pretty sad because people like you are the reason problems get stalled. You think you have answers, but heaven forbid anyone questions your logic. Its just about you throwing a fit about issues and then tuning out everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Carson Dyle]

You think you have answers, but

Um... I didn't see him propose a single answer to his perceived "problem".

Which is typical.

 

[BoberFett]

Final post in this thread: Enjoy your increasing supply of McService jobs (as has already been shown to be by far the largest percentage of jobs created, especially over the last decade) then, if those aren't eliminated too. Just don't whine about the extra amount of socialism that results from the lowering standard of living and lowering wages, if any wages at all.

/out_of_here

Automation does both, it eliminates jobs and creates jobs. Whether or the elimination and creation fully balance each other is a bigger question.

But you seem to be fully willing to automate things that provide YOU with a job while laying off "an acceptable number of people", while decrying automation that might lay off a few other people while creating jobs for yet others.

So basically your version of "I got mine, fuck you."

 

[moonbogg]

Jobs created from robotics production cannot replace the volume of jobs lost. Inefficient biology creates efficient technology which replaces the biology. I'm thinking there is a technological dark ages ahead, where you have rich and poor unlike any other time in history. It may take several generations to balance out and then things might get really good, as in better than ever. I also do palm readings for a small fee.

 

[Bowfinger]

Did I say anywhere that automation doesn't take a single job away? Nope, I said that it can but I also said that isn't always the reason for it. The OP's position is that automation does nothing else but eliminate jobs and its the reason why there are less jobs. I don't agree and I don't see how installing automation automatically leads to less jobs. As for this, its displacing a job in favor of other jobs. You know, that whole conversation that's been going back forth about support.

This debate has been going on long before this thread. Don't butt into conversations you know nothing about. It literally makes you look like a butthead.

I quoted your exact words. As predicted, you did not address those actual words, but instead tried to deflect to what you wish you had said. It literally makes you look like a weasel. As far as me butting in, get over it. It's a quasi-public forum where I can join whatever conversation I wish. If you don't like it, fell free to post elsewhere or start your own forum where you can control the message.

 

[xBiffx]

I quoted your exact words. As predicted, you did not address those actual words, but instead tried to deflect to what you wish you had said. It literally makes you look like a weasel. As far as me butting in, get over it. It's a quasi-public forum where I can join whatever conversation I wish. If you don't like it, fell free to post elsewhere or start your own forum where you can control the message.

Like I said, this has been going on before this thread. I have made previous statements and that is why Engineer immediately picked up where we left off from other threads.

Its probably why my OP included the following, but yet you conveniently omitted:

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

You are so fucking useless its pathetic. And then you call me the weasel. Welcome to my ignore list you lying sack of shit.

 

[Bowfinger]

Like I said, this has been going on before this thread. I have made previous statements and that is why Engineer immediately picked up where we left off from other threads.

Its probably why my OP included the following, but yet you conveniently omitted:

You are so fucking useless its pathetic. And then you call me the weasel. Welcome to my ignore list you lying sack of shit.

Look at the ferocious chihuahua, all enraged. Yip, yip, yip. Yawn. They were your exact words. Are you now acknowledging they were wrong, or are you going to continue to play the weasel?

Re. useless, while I understand you have no use for facts, you should understand I have no use for for people who lack the integrity to be honest and to admit mistakes. That is why I find you to be just as useless as you find me. We value two very different things.


Edit: Oops, I seem to have mixed my metaphors. What do you get when you cross a chihuahua with a weasel? A chiweaweasel? A weahuahua?