Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [MarketWatch] Foxconn replaces 60,000 humans with robots in China
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[MarketWatch] Foxconn replaces 60,000 humans with robots in China - Page 10

post #91 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chakravant View Post

Economies haven't been about production for easily the past 100 years. Since the Industrial Revolution, economies have become about consumption, not production. Economies based on production provide a steady stream of products, with each revision superior to the next in some manner. Economies based on consumption will sell you the poorest quality thing they can convince you to buy. This is why American companies are beginning to promote a guaranteed basic income. The rich have stripped so much money out of the economic system that the government might soon give people free money just to keep consumption going.

The US is a consumer economy because the manufacturing jobs have moved over seas. In a global perspective, production and consumption occur in equal measure (although admittedly, not in equal distribution).

Economist are concerned with stimulating consumption because consumption stimulates growth, for a variety of reasons. It seems to be an axiom of economists that economies are capable of growing forever. Of course this isn't true.
Quote:
In that respect, automation doesn't displace people. The people are already in a system designed to displace them. It is the system that is to blame, not the robot. Automation simply ensures stagnation of development, as it benefits the consumption economy by producing more low quality products faster and more cheaply (for the company. The savings are rarely passed on).

I am not sure I understand.
Quote:
Production economies produce items of quality. The entire planet has been moving away from items of quality for quite some time now.

Quality is a subjective measure, and all markets are at least partially dictated by both cost and quality. You don't have to have one at the expense of the other, and you don't need to have both high quality and high cost. For example, most of use are willing to live with adequate quality and exceptionally cheap socks.
Quote:
Automation is an improper noun. It cannot be inherently good or bad. It is only as good or bad as the people using it are. Right now, the people using it are funneling money to themselves to the detriment of the entire planet. Until that changes, automation can't be a good thing. It isn't being used by more good people than bad people.

Automation is a common noun, at any rate.

I think what you are getting at is that dollar and cents are not accurate measures of wealth or well beings, which I would agree with. The way you phrased it, however, is both vague and hyperbolic.
Quote:
The number of goods need not decrease due to automation. With only a handful of exceptions, the quality of goods tends to decrease as automation increases. We've gone from the era of the Ipad to the era of the Aakash, thanks mainly to this trend. It is no longer about building the best, but rather building the lowest common denominator.

Quality is a very blanket term. It really depends on how you define and measure quality, and for that matter what purpose quality serves. The chinaware produced in the past is no doubt of exquisite quality, but plaster dishware today is certainty adequate. The manufacturing of cars is almost entirely automated today, yet cars have better performance now then they did at any time in the past.
post #92 of 96
"America there is only one way to prevent this. I propose we build a wall to keep the robots out. AND WE WILL MAKE THE ROBOTS BUILD IT!"
post #93 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by mothergoose729 View Post

The US is a consumer economy because the manufacturing jobs have moved over seas. In a global perspective, production and consumption occur in equal measure (although admittedly, not in equal distribution).
Where? India, China, Russia, Europe? All consumption based. We've got to go down the list to Brazil to find a producer, and the ecological destruction used to fuel it is no boon to the global economy.
Quote:
Economist are concerned with stimulating consumption because consumption stimulates growth, for a variety of reasons. It seems to be an axiom of economists that economies are capable of growing forever. Of course this isn't true.
I think we agree more than disagree here, but I'd argue quality of consumption is a more positive growth factor than quantity. It is only through the lens of economics as consumption that sees all consumption as growth.
Quote:
I am not sure I understand.
The driving factor of displacement is profit and quantity, not automation or quality of a larger number of products.
Quote:
Quality is a subjective measure, and all markets are at least partially dictated by both cost and quality. You don't have to have one at the expense of the other, and you don't need to have both high quality and high cost. For example, most of use are willing to live with adequate quality and exceptionally cheap socks.
Quality can have an objective measure when you compare two products with identical (or close enough) construction costs. Especially when you then compare them to profit margins on those two products. Yes, we still have high quality tablets in the world. But the vast majority sold on the planet are cheap Asian knock-offs, not Ipads, Surfaces, and Samsungs. The tablet market is now a lowest common denominator market, and this is the direction that a consumption economy takes. Automobiles are about the only product that has not seen a degradation in product quality due to automation, and a case could be made that we do see a stagnation in quality and design improvements there.
Quote:
I think what you are getting at is that dollar and cents are not accurate measures of wealth or well beings, which I would agree with. The way you phrased it, however, is both vague and hyperbolic.
Quality is a very blanket term. It really depends on how you define and measure quality, and for that matter what purpose quality serves. The chinaware produced in the past is no doubt of exquisite quality, but plaster dishware today is certainty adequate. The manufacturing of cars is almost entirely automated today, yet cars have better performance now then they did at any time in the past.
I was going to stay away from wealth and well being, and just focus on markets, economies, and directions. Quality is a comparative term, requiring at least two objects {in these cases, similar objects) to compare and contrast. But once those items are identified, very concrete conclusions can be made upon that comparison. China is pretty, yes. But a plate is not a plate is not a plate. There is a qualitative difference between generic "white glass" and Corelle. Not all glass is Pyrex, and Pyrex is not scientific grade glassware. If automation was truly always a positive, we'd see things like all glassware being Pyrex, because cheaper operating costs could be used to provide a superior product. And it does, in a production based economy.
post #94 of 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunderman456 View Post

People thinking this is a good idea, well this automation is coming to America sooner than you think.

You have had CEOs talking about it forever.

You already see it at McDonald's/Grocers/Banks. I refuse to use the pre-order/convenience machines.

Kids will have no avenue to get the low paying/middle of the road jobs since they will all be automated.

Kids will have no opportunities to gain money or job experience.

Kids will have no options to pay for school or living expenses.

Parents will also suffer because of this.

Society in general will suffer because of this.

More and more jobs will be lost and this will also keep escalating to the better paying jobs.

Billions of people will be out of work.

Do not use machines, go to live tellers, go to a live cashier, go to a live person whenever you can. Fight it.

I went to the grocery store with my girlfriend and for the first time in a while we went to a cashier instead of the self-checkout. I asked if we could split the cost in half since we are both on a tight budget and after several minutes of this man fumbling around, he ended up charging my card 80 cents and her card $130. This was also after he belittled her for not knowing the price of almonds.

If using self-checkout means I don't have to deal with morons like him or people putting canned food on top of avocados, then sign me up.
Music/Gaming rig
(16 items)
 
My System
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K ASUS P8Z68 V-PRO PNY GTX 560 ti 16gb Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
Seagate 1TB Windows Home 64x Raidmax rx 850 AE Antec DF-85 
  hide details  
Reply
Music/Gaming rig
(16 items)
 
My System
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K ASUS P8Z68 V-PRO PNY GTX 560 ti 16gb Corsair Vengeance 1600mhz 
Hard DriveOSPowerCase
Seagate 1TB Windows Home 64x Raidmax rx 850 AE Antec DF-85 
  hide details  
Reply
post #95 of 96
I can agree that some of those 60,000 workers will find jobs in some other field, but not all of them. Also, this is just the start of this age of change, many more companies will do the same. I am NOT an economics professor but, if X amount of money is collected by a business and distributed among its owners and employees in whatever percentage- when the workers are displaced that same amount of money will still be generated at said business. It just wont be "shared" with those 60,000 people. That X amount of money is 'out of play' for the proletariat class and as more and more companies automate in this fashion, the value of X becomes very large. Whatever the total economy was available to be earned for those proletariats, now becomes (Total economy - X), and again when X gets very large this WILL be felt.

You can tell me automation and robots are going to make the future all wonderful and life will be like star trek, but I think there will be a lot more poverty when the ratio of workers to earnable wages gets upside down. I also understand many jobs will be created to maintain these automated factories, but not 60,000 jobs or the companies wouldn't be doing this.
post #96 of 96
And it's going to happen sooner than most of us were ready for.

http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-is-developing-a-drone-2016-6

Walmart launching drone program in 6-9 months to replace inventory control, and QA employees...
(I'm not commenting that this isn't a good plan for Walmart, I'm sure it will be profitable)

There is a global over supply of labor accelerating right at our economy!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [MarketWatch] Foxconn replaces 60,000 humans with robots in China