Foxconn Cuts 60,000 Jobs, Replaces With Robots (thestack.com) 415
An anonymous reader writes: In a bid to accelerate growth and reduce labor costs, Apple supplier Foxconn cut 60,000 jobs at a single factory, work that is now being completed by robots. As many as 600 companies in the Chinese manufacturing hub of Kunshan may have similar plans to automate their workforce, according to a government survey. Foxconn spokesperson Xu Yulian said, "The Foxconn factory has reduced its employee strength from 110,000 to 50,000, thanks to the introduction of robots. It has tasted success in reduction of labor costs." He added, "More companies are likely to follow suit."
These changes are spurred in part by a desire to reduce labor costs, but have also been made in response to an explosion at a Kunshan factory in 2014 that killed 146 people. The explosion was attributed to unsafe working conditions in the Taiwanese-owned metal polishing factory, which were recognized and documented. After the explosion, the local government pledged 2 billion yuan per year in subsidies to support companies that install industrial robots on their production lines.
These changes are spurred in part by a desire to reduce labor costs, but have also been made in response to an explosion at a Kunshan factory in 2014 that killed 146 people. The explosion was attributed to unsafe working conditions in the Taiwanese-owned metal polishing factory, which were recognized and documented. After the explosion, the local government pledged 2 billion yuan per year in subsidies to support companies that install industrial robots on their production lines.
Even China cutting manufacturing jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who say "we're going to build our economy by bringing back manufacturing" are deluding themselves. Those who vote for those people are also deluding themselves. (yes, this is a not so veiled Trump reference)
robots will just push the manufacturing back to us (Score:3)
robots will just push the manufacturing back to us where they get faster and cheaper shipping.
Re: (Score:2)
You really haven't thought this thing through.
Re: (Score:2)
If a factory in north america can make the same product with the same robots as one in china, then shipping costs become an unneeded expense.
However that leaves other costs for: remaining workforce, labor, enviromental and tax laws that may be favorable elsewhere, capital expenditure to build new factories, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
We can build consumer robots programmed to buy the products built by the robots.
Re:robots will just push the manufacturing back to (Score:4, Insightful)
And now you've accidentally discovered the truth about our "free market economy". Minimum wage workers cost less than slaves.
Isn't it grand?
Re: (Score:2)
End good sure, anything thats messy and dirty will stay there due to epa regs. Or more correctly shift to whatever country has lax regs at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, the US kinda shot itself in the foot. In a race for cheaper labor, it moved all that manufacturing infrastructure and expertise to China. The US government refused to spend while the Chinese poured billions into transportation and seed money to kickstart their world-class manufacturing industry.
It's no longer the case that China is just cheaper -- they simply do it better and on a more massive scale than anything the US could hope to do. The supply chain and business logistics alone is a nightmare to tr
Re: (Score:3)
China still has a quality issue. Yes, stuff is cheaper. Yes, quality is still suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, if you plan to compete with robots for jobs, it usually involves whips and people singing funny-sad songs...
Re: (Score:3)
Why should they? All the electronics engineers and component suppliers are in China, not US. You can't bring anything to empty place, you need to have whole ecosystem and it is long gone.
He might bring back manufacturing (Score:2)
That doesn't mean there'll be anyone working in the factories!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to those who say education and innovation are going to provide mass jobs?
(yes, this is a not so veiled progressive reference)
Re: (Score:2)
Those who say "we're going to build our economy by bringing back manufacturing" are deluding themselves. Those who vote for those people are also deluding themselves. (yes, this is a not so veiled Trump reference)
Why are such people deluded? A strong manufacturing sector seems to be working fine for Germany. The difference is that they don't just pay lip service, they implemented good training programs, apprenticeships, change labor laws to make the bar for terminating a worker more reasonable, etc. Their politicians got it done. You can doubt that US politicians can accomplish something like that (they probably can't), but it isn't delusional in principle.
Re: (Score:2)
But the argument will be far more persuasive if someone credibly *tries* to bring the jobs back and is unsuccessful. It has *not* been tried yet.
Interesting (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I was wondering that. Surely if robots are cheaper manufacturing can be brought back home now? Whats the advantge now of making stuff in china with all the associated shipping costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Robots still suck at some things -- sewing complex shapes (like teddy bears and backpacks) for example. The cost comparison has to take into account the type of work performed, but as the robotics improve in capability and drop in price more and more things will pass the lowest labor thresholds; it seems hard to believe there's any way around that.
Re: (Score:2)
Robots still suck at some things -- sewing complex shapes (like teddy bears and backpacks) for example..
Hopefully there will be robots writing better manuals for products; given the ones I have seen coming out of China, this would be a fairly low bar for AI to reach.
Re: (Score:2)
It is already happening. And with the push of 3D printers, and advanced CNC milling machines and so forth, the actual people who will thrive are the ones that can see a problem, cut a solution out in a CAD program, Mill and Print the parts needed and sell or license the patents off. You did patent the idea, right?
Unskilled, semi-skill laborers that can be replaced by robots, need to be replaced by robots. In the future, the real wealth will be created by those that are creative, artistic, and highly skilled
Re: (Score:3)
It has been happening for the last few years. More and more manufacturing is coming back to the USA for exactly that reason, but for the same reason there aren't any manufacturing JOBS coming back:
http://www.governing.com/gov-i... [governing.com] "Manufacturing Is Coming Back. Factory Jobs Aren’t."
Re: (Score:2)
If robots are doing the jobs, why would you want manufacturing to come back home? What good is having a factory where there are no jobs, owned by a company that is incorporated in a tax haven?
Re: (Score:3)
Technically, if the factory resides in the US, they need to either pay import taxes on materials coming in and export taxes on shipping products out, or pay corporate income tax on products sold domestically.
There are advantages, although clearly not as big of an advantage as having to employ people.
Though people do get employed, just not as many.
Re: (Score:2)
If robots are doing the jobs, why would you want manufacturing to come back home?
1. Lower shipping costs
2. National security
3. A major expense in manufacturing is energy. Energy prices for electricity and gas are much lower in America than in East Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
reduce shipping & import tariff costs.
Imagine being able to build/clone a manufacturing site in each country of your customers. Cheaper & quicker shipping, no tariffs, maybe even local tax breaks.
Why would you NOT do this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
The president of Foxconn was asked about this in 2010; why not manufacture in the US using automation? He said, "I worry America has too many lawyers. I don’t want to spend time having people sue me every day.” Labor costs aren't the only concern; the US is a regulatory and political mine field filled with lavishly funded pressure groups that impose huge costs on industrial investment.
Pointing this out invariably provokes the knee-jerk Sierra club trained response; "so you think the filthy pig-dog capitalists should be allow to pollute everything right?" This is done using some device manufactured in China because the writer couldn't afford to purchase a machine manufactured under the regulator regime he insists on for his own country. So we shit up Asia instead and feather our own regulatory nest.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And we have a winner!
So which third world hellhole made the device you just signaled your virtue with?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Foxconn operates factories in the USA.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at the water pollution and air pollution associated with that manufacturing, then take a look at the environmental regulations in the USA versus China.
Now you have your answer why.
Cost of labor isn't the only reason that manufacturing has moved to the third world. One of the big reasons that the rivers and air in the USA is cleaner now than in the 50s and 60s is the migration of dirty manufacturing plants out of the USA.
Decide for yourself if that is good or bad.
Re: (Score:2)
You can just dump your trash in the river.
Re: (Score:2)
Sell your knowledge / skill (Score:4, Insightful)
> We need to lose this mentality of selling our time and labor to make a living.
> and when I have an answer, I'll be sure to first make my billions off of it before I share with the World.
My company is pretty much fully automated from the customer's perspective. Our automated systems provide the service to the customer. One of the first things I did when I got hired was I analyzed the code and made the automated system run 30% faster, and more reliably. Because the changes which I did once were deployed to dozens of servers servicing thousands of customers, it was very valuable to the business. It basically multiplies my value by thousands of times - I improve the code once, thousands of customers benefit forever.
It's been true for a while and I think it will become more true - for a good income it's best to provide knowledge and skill rather than basic labor. I study about 6 hours per week, and will continue doing that. That might be a new frame of mind for many, that your job is to a) improve your skills and knowledge and b) apply that immense knowledge. Also, for ling term financial stability you've got to invest the 10%-15% of your income in income-generating assets, so you become a part-owner (shareholder) of the robots and other equipment through the businesses that own them.
Re: (Score:3)
See, this is the thing: Robots are cheaper than ANY labor. That's why anyone who tells you that a higher minimum wage is going to force companies to automate are just full of shit. The industrial revolution taught us that corporations will automate when the wage is 25 cents a day. If a company will bring in a machine to a fast restaurant to replace a $15/hr worker, they'll do it to replace a $7/hr worker too.
The problem is, there just won't be anyone left to buy
Re: (Score:2)
60,000 people, even at 10 cents an hour, is a lot of money.
Getting 2 billion yuan to stop killing employees probably helps too.
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
60,000 people, even at 10 cents an hour, is a lot of money.
Average factory wages in China are about $3/hour, not 10 cents. Since prices for many things are much lower in China, $3 buys as much as $10 in America. A Chinese factory worker can't afford a house and a car, but they can afford an apartment and a bicycle.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean bunk bed with 10 other workers.
Dormitories are available at many factories in Shenzhen, and other cities with largely migrant workforces, but they are optional, and most factory workers do not live in them. Factories in cities with more settled workforces usually do not offer dorms. I have never seen a dormitory at any factory in Shanghai.
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering that myself. I mean, you have to BUY robots, and maintain them, and program them...
Humans are so much cheaper than that. You get them for free and you can simply toss them away when they're broken because there's plenty more for free.
Not surprising. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . .the trend to automation of mass manufacturing has been accelerating for decades. The REAL question is, what do we do with the displaced manufacturing workers, who are becoming increasingly replaced by robots? And the "service sector" does not have jobs for them, either.
There is a rather ominous trend when you have a surplus of workers, especially young male workers without prospects. The long term solution is fewer children, as is happening in the West. But all too often, the short-term result is war.
I'm sure someone will start suggesting "basic income", and as automation increases to the point where we transition to "prosperity economics", that may well be the long-term solution. But getting through the short term is likely to be worrisome. . .
Re: (Score:3)
. The REAL question is, what do we do with the displaced manufacturing workers, who are becoming increasingly replaced by robots? And the "service sector" does not have jobs for them, either.
No, but thanks to our new robot bakers, there's plenty of cake for them to eat.
Re: (Score:2)
the short-term result is war.
While you guy are at war, I'll be kicking back on my little farm eating homegrown popcorn.
Re:Not surprising. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Fortunately, China is a communist society where the people own the means of production, and thus all will get a share of the gains of automation.
*Puts finger in ear, looks down for a second, looks back up to camera*
I've just been notified that this is, in fact, not how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
They are ok with it, if only white people get it.
On the plus side (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
Wah wah they're automating Wendy's (Score:3)
Hey, remember all the crap that was going on about automating the ordering process at Wendy's? Wah wah the job losses? Robots are getting cheaper and humans more expensive. Even China is now automating to save on labor. Sure there's a few countries left, but as jobs go there soon enough they'll earn their way out of poverty too.
If your job could be done by a robot, it's time to start thinking about a new job. And also time to start thinking about what to do when most jobs are done by robots (owned by rich people or corporations) and almost everyone is unemployed.
Re: (Score:2)
And also time to start thinking about what to do when most jobs are done by robots (owned by rich people or corporations) and almost everyone is unemployed.
Exactly that! There is no cost to labor that is low enough to make it competitive with modern day automation. Talking heads that say minimum wage rises are making companies to switch to automation, don't know what they are talking about (TFA shows that quite well). Sure strawberry picking may still be a human domain, but for how long? Even if human labor was free, it will be hard press to compete with the consistency and productivity that automation brings. So yes, it is time to think how a society will fun
Re: (Score:2)
If your job could be done by a robot, it's time to start thinking about a new job.
You realize that is about 90% of America, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps 90% of American's jobs could be done by robots, but Slashdotters are likely much safer in that respect (still at risk of outsourcing, of course). If robots start taking over Slashdotters' jobs, then we'll have some interesting times (advanced AI).
Re: (Score:2)
You would have to become some artificial intelligence engineer or artist and then you should be able afford all the products.
Next question would be what to do with new dumb underclass that will be unable to do any engineering or service work. I guess they will get some basic income or whatever increased benefits will be called them. The same as now, but at higher level. Nothing is going to change really so much.
Re: (Score:2)
https://archive.org/stream/gal... [archive.org]
Read "The Midas Plague"
Re: (Score:2)
Are the corporations going to make robots to buy their products since no one can afford them?
Of course not. If it comes to that, they'll just switch most of the robots to building yachts. Either for their own use or to sell to other rich people.
hope they have a plan for the homeless (Score:2)
After the explosion, the local government pledged 2 billion yuan per year in subsidies to support companies that install industrial robots on their production lines.
what this effectively says is that "workers paid companies to replace them with robots" which is only a good idea if the companies in turn pay to take care of those who lost their jobs. don't get me wrong, full automation is the [inevitable] future and it should be embraced but it will only be sustainable if the benefits of automation are shared rather than consolidated. this is the basis of a post-scarcity world.
Tentatively going where no human has gone before (Score:5, Insightful)
Mass automation of grunt work and more free time because of it should be a good thing. But, we don't know how to distribute the resulting goods and wealth. We seem to be entering a new phase of history and economics with different rules. It's both exciting and frustrating.
The economies of "mature" nations are not behaving normally:
1. The "recovery" is slower than past patterns.
2. Inflation is too low. Economies tend to do best with inflation around 2.2% (annual), but we've been hovering around 1.7% for a while.
3. Low interest rates are not triggering investments.
4. Investors and companies prefer sitting on cash instead of investing.
Taxing the wealthy heavily is one common suggestion for distributing this "jammed" wealth, but this rubs many people wrong.
Outright printing money and distributing it to regular consumers is another suggestion (AKA "helicopter money"), but nobody is sure of the side-effects.
Reducing regulations is another suggestion, but most federal regulations were put in place because one or more organization were doing sleazy things. We don't want to become a 3rd-world dump in order to compete with the 3rd world by polluting more and having abusive working conditions. State-level regulations, which are often passed with less scrutiny, are possibly a better place to clean up bad laws, but require state governments to act.
What are the other options? We may have to just experiment with one or more of the above, but admitting you are experimenting looks bad, politically.
One hopes (Score:3)
I'm shocked (Score:3)
This sort of automation only happens when a $15/hour minimum wage is introduced!!
holy crap, 60,000 is a lot of jobs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats what the manufacturers lobbied for, so it must be best for the country.
Re: (Score:2)
It brings tears to my eyes. China has finally fully embraced capitalism!
That I would live to see that... *sniff*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know, those horrible lower costs should have never come along. We were better off when 43% of our income went to food (circa 1900), instead of 11.5% (circa 2015). We should have never improved technology; we were best off when cell phones cost $4,000 (1983, $9,000 in 2015 money) and 2 hours per week of voice would cost you $250/month ($550/month in 2015).
All we ever got for lowering costs were a bunch of whiny middle-class talking about how poor they are spending 40% of their income on junk, buying
Re:I've been predicted that (Score:5, Insightful)
Your sarcastic tone was unnecessary to get your point across. In the long run it's impossible to argue with the benefits of industrial efficiency, and robots are a clear winner over humans for efficiency.
The problem is that society (an umbrella term encompassing individuals and their attitudes; government lawmakers and executives; and corporations' leadership) collectively has few ideas (and even fewer plans to actually implement those ideas) about what to do to take care of the laborers whose jobs are being taken away by this efficiency. We continue to see global population growth; there are more people than ever, but fewer jobs are needed as automation increases.
The whole "let them eat cake" philosophy won't work. You're talking about a 21st century revolution in the way business is conducted. You can't expect the current societal structures and economic theories to continue to work when you're making such a drastic change. The change is ultimately for the better, but only if we change our society to look after the people who will be out of work.
Let's hope that industrial efficiency and automation helps us reach the high ground, instead of delving into a horrid dystopia.
Still relevant: http://marshallbrain.com/manna... [marshallbrain.com]
Re:I've been predicted that (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there are a few ideas that eventually will be forced to take shape out of necessity:
1. Basic income. With all this productive efficiency that don't need human labor, either you deal with a mass uprising, kill them off, or you tax the rich (those who've benefitted) enough to quell the masses with a basic income. You'll then essentially create two classes of people: productive people and dilettantes.
2. People will, due to a lot of time, a need for work and that creativity humans are known for, create more stuff that only humans can create. One obvious area is art and personal services. We saw the shift from physical labor to factory labor when agricultural technology improved. We're now seeing the shift from factory labor to office and household labor due to manufacturing technology improvements. In the future, gadgets may be what food is like now: something only ~5% of the population needs to work on and is universally supplied to all. People will spend ~10% of their income on it just like they do clothes and the majority of spending will be on "touchy feely" objects like "artesian, infused craft beer".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
'personal services'. ... ...
But - what if you are not better than a robot?
I can (if rich) in principle have a band to wake me up by playing live music, while someone gently fans me to keep me cool, followed by a maid to wipe my bottom in the toilet, and
Then on to my butler bringing food in from the chef,
'Personal service' - some of these tasks are - in many peoples opinion - actually better done by machine.
The other problem is might I in principle like a butler - yes.
Do I want a butler who is an unemployed
3. or plan B (Score:2)
Jails and prisons fill up and in the usa do to stuff like cruel and unusual punishment they have better doctors then Medicaid. Room and board and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Artesian beer? Bud Lite, you mean?
Re: (Score:3)
No that would be Olympia beer:
https://youtu.be/o2VcqffbbH8 [youtu.be]
https://youtu.be/lgn0NXckqQs [youtu.be]
"Ain't never seen no Artesians..."
Re: (Score:3)
I really wonder why job sharing is missed?
I get the basic income and its really not a bad idea. But what I don't get is if you look at the current world, we see two trends.
1. People working really hard
2. A lot of people needing work
Sounds like a recipe for work to be shared. Fewer hours per worker.
Now I get it, not all jobs can be shared. But there are a lot that can. There's also a lot where you can just double up on labor to have a more resilient system or have people with assistants.
I work hard as a soft
Re: (Score:3)
Benefits are another big cost of additional workers. If health insurance was provided by the government that would help quite a bit probably.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And that household of nine pay for that better TV by having to share it with three times as many people, along with sharing everything else in their household with three times as many people. That's an effect that already happens, can't be fixed, and already has disincentives limiting it, so it's a complete non-sequitur. Of course people who pool their resources can get better things, that they then have to share with more people. So what?
Re:I've been predicted that (Score:5, Insightful)
You UBI people also make another fatal assumption: That people, not having to work, will 'find their purpose in life'. They will not. Most people have no clue, their entire lives, what their 'purpose' is, and never find one; these people need to be given a purpose; it's called 'earning a living and surviving', AKA 'having a job'. Most people will sit around, eat, have sex, get fat, litter the planet with their directionless offspring, and otherwise get in trouble out of utter boredom and too-much-time-on-their-hands, all on the government dole.
Re:I've been predicted that (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people will sit around, eat, have sex, get fat, litter the planet with their directionless offspring, and otherwise get in trouble out of utter boredom and too-much-time-on-their-hands, all on the government dole.
Yes, this is exactly what the millions of Americans who are independently wealthy do all day. Or do they actually get a great education, work even harder than everyone else, and make great contributions to our society? Probably a little of both. If you don't think inherited wealth ruins the rich, there is no reason to think that a UBI will ruin the poor either; unless you think that the poor are inferior in an absolute and unchangeable sense.
Re:I've been predicted that (Score:5, Insightful)
Speak for yourself. If I had enough money to retire right now, I'd have more than enough cool personal projects to last me the rest of my life. :-)
But seriously, you're right that most people need some kind of work to have a purpose. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be corporate work for a company trying to make a profit. Right now, there are lots of nonprofits that just can't work because of the costs involved. I have at least a couple of them in mind right now that I'd love to start, but lack the tens of millions of dollars of seed money to build facilities and hire people. (I'm not going to hire people unless I know I can keep them employed for more than a few weeks, and that's not something I can do with my own personal cash supply.)
However, if I knew that there were millions of unemployed people on the government's payroll who would be willing to volunteer, that would change the equation significantly. Suddenly, I could bring in volunteers for the nonprofit to do the work, and I wouldn't have to worry about not being able to pay them, because they would be guaranteed enough of an income to pay the bills. I might even be able to raise enough money to supplement that income a bit, knowing that if things got tight, we could cut our expenses down to basically zero without our staff starving.
I predict that a basic income would create a new revival for nonprofits, providing a wellspring of staff willing to volunteer.
Some facts (Score:5, Insightful)
So-called 'Universal Basic Income' will not scale up; everyone points to small EU countries who are only talking about it, haven't actually done it, who don't have trillions in National Debt to deal with. It won't work here in the U.S and in any number of first-world countries.
You UBI people also make another fatal assumption: That people, not having to work, will 'find their purpose in life'. They will not. Most people have no clue, their entire lives, what their 'purpose' is, and never find one; these people need to be given a purpose; it's called 'earning a living and surviving', AKA 'having a job'. Most people will sit around, eat, have sex, get fat, litter the planet with their directionless offspring, and otherwise get in trouble out of utter boredom and too-much-time-on-their-hands, all on the government dole.
Okay, calm down.
You are predicting that something won't work based on little more than your opinion. Let's throw some facts into the mix.
POINT 1
Taking the US as an example, since you mentioned it specifically, note that the GDP per capita [google.com] in the US is a little over $53K per person. If the productivity output of the US were evenly distributed, that means that every man, woman, and child could spend $53,000 on goods and services this year, and next year they would have another $53 to spend.
Count only the working adults (about half the population) and that number doubles.
POINT 2
Productivity has about doubled [wikimedia.org] since 1970. That's only 40 years ago. If you believe the trend is linear, it will double again in another 40 years, but if it is exponential, then it will quadrouple in another 40 years.
POINT 3
A hypothetical $1,000,000 invested in an index fund is expected to return around 7% interest over the long term. You need to take the long view on this rate, and not cherry-pick individual past decades - it's been consistent with the rise of productivity. See point 2 above.
Given 1% for management fees and 2% to account for inflation, that $1 million would pay out $40,000 per year in perpetuity.
The US could start a process of putting $1 million deposits aside and awarding the payouts to working class people on some schedule. A lottery, for example. If you want to work, you don't have to enter the lottery.
Note that the cost of the Iraq war was $1.7 trillion dollars, spent over a decade. That amount of money awarded to worker annuities could have reduced the workforce by 1.7 million workers, making the remaining jobs easier to find.
POINT 4
Note that we are rapidly developing self-driving vehicles. The first self-driving semi [wired.com] is on the road right now!
Even if the self-driving vehicle isn't useful 100% of the time (snow, limited visibility), by my calculations this will dump 2.5 million into the labor force almost instantly.
Note that Amazon is experimenting with delivery by drone [time.com]. This could potentially drop another million [bls.gov] into the workforce almost overnight. (If you include postal workers and some others not accounted for in the previous link.)
POINT 5
Regardless of whether you think it will work or not, something has to change.
You either make it work, or try to survive the burning destruction of the US, a modern recast of the French Revolution.
Do you have kids? You might consider what type of world you want them to live in.
Re:Some facts (Score:4, Insightful)
It's truly amazing what we have done. Who would have thought that those filthy cavemen would one day struggle with the "problem" of too much bounty and not enough work to go around?
Re:I've been predicted that (Score:4, Informative)
The thing is, most of us here in Europe already have it of sorts. I just checked the standard for social aid here in Norway, essentially the lowest form of benefits if you don't qualify for anything else and have no means to sustain yourself. Last year it was 5700 NOK/month = $8200/year + cheapest form of housing with insurance and utilities. Norway is expensive so purchasing power parity adjusted that's more like $7400 and since we have 25% general VAT, 15% on food the government will make quite a bit back so maybe more like having $6000 in the US. But with rent, insurance and utilities taken care of you can stretch those $500/month quite a bit if you just look for second hand stores, flea markets, giveaways and such. That said, some counties have also introduced activity requirements so you will be wasting your days doing community service, not just sit around and play WoW. But nobody's going to end up in a tent camp, unless they have such drug problems we can't really house them anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
With a post-scarcity society, we can go one of two routes: A basic income, or spend money on prisons, police, military, training, dealing with crime/terrorism when a disaffected populace becomes an insurgent populace. I personally think a basic income is cheaper in the long run, and can allow a nation to focus on something other than existing or basic security in its borders.
Even in 1984, the proles got -something-.
Re: (Score:2)
what to do to take care of the laborers whose jobs are being taken away by this efficiency
You simply accept this as an obvious premise, when there is little evidence that the robots are really "stealing our jobs". Past waves of technological change resulted in temporary disruption, but did not result in permanent job loses. There is little reason to believe it is happening this time either. Economies are not zero-sum, and a job lost to automation does not mean a jobless person. Robots are used where they have a comparative advantage [wikipedia.org], but, by definition, that is not all jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Innovation and automation have been happening continuously for the past 250 years. Go visit a modern factory. They are already 90% automated. If you look at the slow rate of productivity growth, automation appears to be slowing down rather than accelerating, since most of the repetitive manufacturing jobs are already automated, and automating service jobs is much more difficult.
the automobile actually increased domestic employment
All previous waves of technological change increased employment. So why do you believe "This time is different"?
Re:I've been predicted that (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why we need robots, AC - so that third world workers can have NO jobs!
Then you and they can stop your whinging moaning and complaining about slave labour conditions because you won't have ANY labour conditions to worry about.
See that? Problem solved.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...... what? Let me get this straight:
I write a post expressing concern for the welfare of the people who are losing jobs to automation (the "99%" in your undirected diatribe of rage against me).
You come back then accusing me of basically being a consumer (which, by the way, would have similar attitudes and behaviors in ANY advanced industrialized country; the US just happens to be marginally better at throwing larger amounts of cheaper crap at its citizens to buy, due to favorable foreign trade laws.)
Eit
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and for the record, I live close to the poverty line. Above it, yes, but nowhere near sniffing 6 figs. I'm a 50 percenter at best.
Re: (Score:3)
All true.
For people who actually HAVE a job.
Re: (Score:2)
Just shut the hell up...
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, with inflation moving along, we'll all eventually be making ten million dollars a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder now why if robots are doing the work and the labor arbitrage and savings and competitive advantage of slave labor is not longer a big cost savings why can all this manufacturing be repatriated to the USA?
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is... lowering cost is a good thing for everyone. We do want to make things more efficiently and put people in less danger in manufacturing. The problem is that we expect people to support themselves with these jobs, and they're disappearing as robots can do the work of an assembly line much better than any person overall.
Honestly, I am a little surprised that an avowedly Communist country like China, is allowing this to happen. Mind you, not *that* surprised, this IS China after all, but still
Re: (Score:2)
". . .the avalanche has begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. . . ."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That. Or writing fake cheer messages on Facebook how cool their government is, or farming gold in some MMO, or...
There's still plenty of ways to make a quick cent!
Re: (Score:3)
* Offer may not apply in China