Posted on 05/03/2015 7:52:03 AM PDT by Enlightened1
Report: Robots replacing human workers at faster pace
Robots aren't just for corporate Goliaths -- now even the little guy on Main Street is adopting them. The goal: to boost sales and productivity. But at what cost?
Take Sam Kraus, a Hungarian immigrant who founded what became Skyline Windows in 1921. In the early days, the tinsmith traveled around with a small cart to do his roofing and waterproofing work by hand.
Fast-forward to today, and the fourth-generation business based in New York City's South Bronx has left the pushcart era far behind. Skyline, which has evolved into a custom window manufacturer and installer, now relies on robots to do some of its work. In the factory in Woodridge, New Jersey, where it makes its windows, Skyline uses a $150,000 computer-operated machine to automate tasks like cutting holes in the metal and two $20,000 robots to install its windows, which sometimes weigh 600 pounds.
"It allows us to be more efficient—and our plan is to buy more of these robots when we can," said senior vice president Matt Kraus, whose profitable firm brings in about $70 million in annual revenue and employs about 350 people.
The future of jobs
"Businesses will need to hire no people or fewer people," he said. "You can literally have one person start a manufacturing business."
A decline in traditional jobs could lead to shrinking markets for small businesses, said Ford. "We need consumers out there who will buy what is created by the economy," he said
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
I don't mean to pick on you, but you have made the most interest points here.;-)
Scarcity can be a good thing in that it can build character.
Like many of us, I had parents who were children of the depression. Their appreciation of the value of little things (like a hot cup of coffee and a good meal) were the products of scarcity...and were wonderful things to behold.
What you describe is how things have worked since the start of the industrial revolution. As jobs have been eliminated, new and on average better jobs have been generated.
Unfortunately, past performance does not necessarily predict future performance.
I really, really hope you are right. However, I suspect that computers and automation are not simply an extension of past issues, but are a true game-changer.
You are quite right about entrepeneurs and innovators. They will always find some use for themselves, as will highly intelligent people.
But most people simply are not natural entrepeneurs or innovators, and 50% of the population is of below average intelligence.
You are correct, to some extent. Of course, poverty and its character building are always much more attractive when others are the ones affected. Very few people choose to live in poverty to built their character.
But I do know what you mean. One of the most disgusting things I see around me is the way young upper-crust types think failure to have the latest and best of everything constitutes true hardship. Actual hardship would be good for them, IMO.
You may remember the idiot in Santa Barbara who killed a number of people. One of the hardships he listed that drove him to it was being forced to drive only a Mercedes E-class.
Those who invested in the robot industry will have money.
Of course throughout history, we had wars to get rid of the excess population.
Robots won’t demand $15 an hour.
It's clear that nobody is really preparing for this transition, which is why it's bound to be rough.
Thanks.
My eyes were opened to this by The Bell Curve. That was the primary focus of the book, not the difference between the races the media used to demonize it. BTW, every problem described by the book has continued and accelerated.
And still nobody wants to talk about it!
The Left wants our structural unemployment problem to be caused by evil greedy capitalists and conservatives.
The Right wants it to be by lazy and unmotivated slackers.
There is of course some truth in both claims. But the real problem is simply what you describe.
A simple example: Probably within 10 years the vast majority of those who present make a living driving vehicles will be displaced by automation.
The Pollyannas say, “No problem! We’ll still need people to design, build and maintain the self-driving systems!”
While true, they simply ignore two critical facts:
1. Numbers. For every 100 jobs driving lost, I suspect no more than 10 and probably less than 5 will be created to replace them building and maintaining the sytems. That means a net loss of 90 to 95 jobs.
2. IQ. Most of the people presently driving for a living are not going to be intellectually capable of designing, building or even maintaining these systems. They don’t have the intellectual horsepower to even be trained to do so. This is the key insight of The Bell Curve, which I recommend to all.
Thanks for your input.
A decline in traditional jobs could lead to shrinking markets for small businesses, said Ford. “We need consumers out there who will buy what is created by the economy,” he said
I don’t understand how business will think they will get ahead if there are no jobs no one can buy their products? Law of supply and demand right?
But it is common in business. If you DON’T adopt the tech, you are out of business, if you DO you MIGHT be out of business.
Those who remember our emergence from the Carter malaise will remember the way the PC was the “big new thing”
A lot of people still have romantic visions of Laverne & Shirley working in the bottling plant and stamping caps on beer bottles. It might look like a good job on TV but it was a dreary way to make a living. Well we have machines that do that now and the Laverne & Shirley's of today are more likely to be creating web content or advising companies on how best to maintain their data in the cloud.
And he had power to give life to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. Rev. 13:15.
That is what is coming...a robot that can be Demonically indwelt!
Correct. People will move onto other things and everyone’s standard of living will increase incrementally.
Besides, what’s the alternative? Banning robots?
The only way this becomes a short-lived cost benefit is if the job markets are zero-sum. As long as people can imagine their way into new niches in markets, where the rudiments of the business are not completely worked out, then there will be jobs.
Once upon a time the nation was largely agrarian, and we suffered through the industrial revolution. Now, we look at that revolution as the beginning of greatness.
As do large businesses, BTW.
What percentage of the population do you think is intellectually capable of running a bottle capping machine vs. creating web content or advising companies?
The problem is not the brighter 50%. The jobs you describe, BTW, are probably limited to the top 25%.
The problem is what do the people who could do a fine job on the factory floor but nothing more intellectually demanding do when there are no more factory floors?
This process cannot be stopped except by a worldwide totalitarian government.
There are still plenty of manual labor jobs out there. What about being a roofer for instance? Or a landscaper?
What about that large percentage of the population, probably something close to 50% and continually increasing, who are not intellectually capable of mastering the new skills?
It’s not their fault.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.