Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics United States Technology

Amazon Is Hiring Fewer Workers This Holiday Season, a Sign That Robots Are Replacing Them (qz.com) 94

Posted by BeauHD from the sign-of-the-times dept.
Amazon is hiring around 100,000 additional employees this holiday season, which is fewer than the company added in either the 2016 or 2017 holiday seasons, when it brought in 120,000 additional workers. "Citi analyst Mark May says he thinks the reduction in seasonal hiring is strong evidence that Amazon is succeeding with plans to automate operations in its warehouses," reports Quartz. From the report: "We've seen an acceleration in the use of robots within their fulfillment centers, and that has corresponded with fewer and fewer workers that they're hiring around the holidays," May told CNBC. He added that 2018 is the "first time on record" Amazon plans to hire fewer holiday workers than it did the previous year. "Since the last holiday season, we've focused on more ongoing full-time hiring in our fulfillment centers and other facilities," Amazon spokesperson Ashley Robinson said in an email, adding that the company has "created over 130,000 jobs" in the last year. "We are proud to have created over 130,000 new jobs in the last year alone."

Amazon bought robotics company Kiva Systems for $775 million in 2012, and began using its orange robots in warehouses in late 2014. By mid-2016, it had become clear just how big a difference those robots were making. The little orange guys could handle in 15 minutes the sorting, picking, packing, and shipping that used to take human workers an hour or more to complete. In June 2016, Deutsche Bank predicted Kiva automation could save Amazon nearly $2.5 billion (those savings dropped to $880 million after accounting for the costs of installing robots in every warehouse).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amazon Is Hiring Fewer Workers This Holiday Season, a Sign That Robots Are Replacing Them More

Amazon Is Hiring Fewer Workers This Holiday Season, a Sign That Robots Are Replacing Them

Comments Filter:
  • when the world doesn't need ditch diggers? Pretty obvious that it's time to figure that out.

    And for all that say they'll be new jobs, what? I want specifics. Following the last big industrial rev there was about 80 years of joblessness until new tech came along. Anyone want to live through 80 years of abject poverty so your grandkids can someday have a job you can't even imagine after you've died?

    • well student loans used to have bankruptcies now it's just about unlimited loans

    • Re:So what do we do (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Guybrush_T ( 980074 ) on Monday November 05, 2018 @07:24PM (#57597242)

      Following the last big industrial rev there was about 80 years of joblessness until new tech came along.

      Interesting, but I can't quite find references to those 80 years ... would you mind providing some pointers ? Thanks !

      • Interesting, but I can't quite find references to those 80 years ... would you mind providing some pointers ?

        Somehow the way you worded it makes it sound like you didn't search and are very skeptical that it was a thing.

        You might want to start reading here:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        Also, Dickens. You've heard of him, right? Or do you need some pointers?

        • I did some research and could find anything clear ... and I'm genuinely interested if that has happened in the past already -- though as always skeptical of everything posted here, even things I take for granted.

          Anyway, I looked at your link, and I'm even more skeptical. Couldn't find a description of those "80 years of joblessness after the industrial revolution .. until new tech came along". Which years ? Which new tech ?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hdyoung ( 5182939 )
      There's a very, very easy answer to your question about what to do for the next 80 years. You need to be the owner of capital. Buy stocks or otherwise invest in the companies that make mad profits from the upcoming industrial/manufacturing/robotic/AI revolution. Stocks, bonds, mutual funds and other investments were explicitly designed so that normal plebes get a piece of the prosperity that capitalism provides.

      Oh, you're not putting part of your money towards investments? Enjoy the next 80 years of po

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Look up what a typical American makes. Then realize if you have a meaningful amount of investment capital, you are better off and have more economic ability than 65% of "normal plebs." The type of investment you are referring to, i.e. complete job replacement when automation takes it, is limited to single-digit percentages of people already living far better lives than all but a handful of us could feasibly enjoy without post-scarcity magic.

        Oh, you're not putting part of your money towards investments? Enjoy the next 80 years of poverty.

        Might as well say "Oh, you weren't born with legs? Enjoy your wheel

    • Re:So what do we do (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday November 05, 2018 @07:28PM (#57597254)

      when the world doesn't need ditch diggers?

      The unemployed people can stay at home and read about economic fallacies [wikipedia.org].

      Look, if you don't need to pay someone to do warehouse picking, then that money will go toward lower prices and/or higher dividends, putting that money into the pocket of someone else who will either spend it or invest it, thus generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.

      The difference is that the warehouse picker was adding nothing to the total amount of goods and services produced, but the new job will, thus leading to a rise in living standards.

      And for all that say they'll be new jobs, what? I want specifics.

      Then buy some tarot cards. Nobody can see the future. Do you think a farmer in 1880 could see that his great-grandson would be a video game developer?

      Following the last big industrial rev there was about 80 years of joblessness until new tech came along.

      This is absolute nonsense. The last big surge of automation led to dramatic and nearly immediate improvements in standards of living.

      • Another way of saying it is that Amazon has become more efficient. This is a good thing.

      • putting that money into the pocket of someone else who will either spend it or invest it

        In this case that pocket belongs to Jeff Bezos, and he will invest it in automating more people out of a job.

        • In this case that pocket belongs to Jeff Bezos, and he will invest it in automating more people out of a job.

          ... which is a good thing. America consumes too much and invests too little. This investment in capital equipment will lead to more efficiency, and even higher living standards in the future.

          Meanwhile, the money will leave Jeff's pocket and go into the pocket of the people building and installing that equipment.

          • You just don't get it much, do you? AIs and robots will be building the equipment.
            If you can't see the trend, you're just blind to slightly slow processes.
            Aren't you the guy that also can't see global warming coming too.
            You should see a slow opthalmologist about that.
            • It's just easier to believe something when it's something you already want to hear. Nobody wants climate change to be real, so an optimist is able to ignore evidence that it is. The fact that so many people believe in climate change is really the best evidence that it's real.

              • Nobody wants climate change to be real, so an optimist is able to ignore evidence that it is.

                Stupid analogy.

                For climate change, there is overwhelming evidence that it is real.

                For "job losses to automation" there is overwhelming evidence that it is nonsense. It didn't happen in the past, it is not happening now, and areas of the world that failed to automate are much poorer.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Hizonner ( 38491 )

                  'It didn't happen in the past,

                  ... because past forms of automation haven't allowed machines to be better at every single thing a human can do. That will include management, engineering, art, creativity, diplomacy, empathic understanding of people's feelings, you name it. Machines will do it all better. Some people might value a few things, because they were done by humans, however inferior the results... but that's not a basis for an economy.

                  By the way, the machines will probably be really good at manipula

                  • ... because past forms of automation haven't allowed machines to be better at every single thing a human can do.

                    Read this: Comparative Advantage [wikipedia.org].

                    You are repeating an economic fallacy that was debunked by David Ricardo more than 200 years ago.

                    That will include management, engineering, art, creativity, diplomacy, empathic understanding of people's feelings, you name it

                    That is science fiction, and is no where on the horizon. If you think that "deep learning" is leading to general AI, you are mistaken.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Hizonner ( 38491 )

                      You are repeating an economic fallacy that was debunked by David Ricardo more than 200 years ago.

                      I'm familiar with it.

                      It's not interesting when the advantaged side has unknown incentive structures that probably don't include wanting to keep its own product at all, and may include actively wanting to give its production to the other side without compensation. For that matter, it's not relevant if the advantaged side converts the other side into paper clips. It's also not relevant when the advantage is so hug

          • You seem to be implying that there is no net loss of jobs, but it's implausible that anyone with common sense can believe that.

            • You seem to be implying that there is no net loss of jobs

              The steam engine was invented 3 centuries ago, kicking off the industrial revolution. If automation caused a "net loss of jobs" there would be none left.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Jeremi ( 14640 )

                The steam engine was invented 3 centuries ago, kicking off the industrial revolution. If automation caused a "net loss of jobs" there would be none left.

                While I agree that the jury isn't in yet regarding automation-vs-jobs, I think the above logic doesn't apply.

                The reason is that despite the invention of the steam engine, humanity (up until very recently) still had the trump card up its sleeve -- no matter how fast or powerful a machine was, it was still dumber than your average cockroach and therefore needed one or more humans to direct its behavior and maintain its mechanisms.

                That is what is changing now -- humans lost the battle-for-strength centuries ag

      • "Look, if you don't need to pay someone to do warehouse picking, then that money will go toward lower prices and/or higher dividends, putting that money into the pocket of someone else who will either spend it or invest it, thus generating jobs for other robots and AIs elsewhere in the economy."

        Fixed that for you.

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday November 06, 2018 @03:05AM (#57598432)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Put them in camps? well UBI is better then the state paying $30-40K year to lock them up even more so if that is there only way to get to an doctor.

        • People have been saying this same garbage for well over 200 years. It's like a doomsday cult.

          220 years ago, 90% of people worked on farms. Today 2% of the population works on farms. Last I checked, we do not have 88% unemployment.

          Where do you think the government is getting the resources to pay those "subsidies"? By taxing or inflating it out of the economy. The government is breaking people's legs and you're standing there wondering what would happen if the government stopped giving out crutches. You

      • Then buy some tarot cards. Nobody can see the future. Do you think a farmer in 1880 could see that his great-grandson would be a video game developer?

        Yeah, this is the wild card to me.

        I mean, "social media specialist" is an actual thing. We seem almost endlessly inventive at coming up with new jobs. And their occupants are definitely not all super high IQ, believe me.

    • And for all that say they'll be new jobs, what? I want specifics.

      Anyone who knows the answer to that question is too busy trying to start a company to take advantage of the newly available cheap labor instead of stopping to satisfy your curiosity. If you wait long enough though, they'll tell you all about it in the ads that they run to attract your business.

      So what do we do when the world doesn't need ditch diggers? Pretty obvious that it's time to figure that out.

      The U.S. has more land than it needs for agriculture and will probably need even less as technology advances and we figure out how to grow meat in labs. Maybe the answer is to figure out how much land a person needs t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by lgw ( 121541 )

        Anyone who knows the answer to that question is too busy trying to start a company to take advantage of the newly available cheap labor instead of stopping to satisfy your curiosity. If you wait long enough though, they'll tell you all about it in the ads that they run to attract your business.

        Too late! New business in my area include internet-dispatched lawn mowing, internet-dispatched car watching, internet-dispatched clothes cleaning, and, well, you get the theme. All these jobs pay more than minimum wage, too

    • Well, due to the unavoidable social upheaval there will be plenty of wars in which your grandkids can be cannon fodder for whatever crazy death dealing machines the like of DARPA can dream up. So, there will be job opportunities for at least a generation or two (but maybe not afterwards)

    • IT also [Re:So what do we do] (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday November 05, 2018 @09:15PM (#57597632) Journal

      when the world doesn't need ditch diggers? Pretty obvious that it's time to figure that out.

      Or programmers.

      I do a lot of CRUD-centric applications (tracking, work-flow, reporting, management info systems). With a good stack I'm quite productive and spend more time on analysis than diddling with code. With bad stacks I spend way too much time diddlying with code, and more stacks seem to be like that these days, partly because the choice of JavaScript widgets available makes PHB's crave ever fancier eye-candy that makes for ever more fragile/leaky systems that need ever more people to fix.

      If automation either takes over the grunt work or creates more logical standards with fewer parts, a good many programmers will be let go since fewer are needed for the same position. The analyst/coder hybrid will disappear or shrink, leaving just analysts. 2 analyst/coder hybrids can then be replaced by 1 analyst.

      Admit it, there's a lot of redundancy, BS, & bloat in most our stacks/techniques that can be factored out yet still do the necessary job. AI may have less incentive to add or keep unnecessary bloat; bots aren't biased for job security like we are.

      Sorry, but humans unconsciously make selections/recommendations that make themselves more "needed". It's seen in the medical field also. I cannot predict what future AI will look like, but there's a decent chance it won't have this same bias, and thus factor itself better. Genetic algorithms may "evolve" stacks to fit company conventions tightly based on existing applications, for example. Fewer humans would then be needed to program with it. Our current stack manager stuck us with bloating microservices even though we don't need them because he thought it was "cool". AI probably won't. He should be fired by bots.

      Field info (DB schema) is often replicated all over typical stacks, for example. DRY Principle says I should only have to state field info in ONE place, not ten. There are tools that duplicate the field info into the parts of the stack, but duplication only simplifies creation of code, not maintenance.

      (I've kicked around ways to factor such, but most code tools are too file-centric or too hierarchical. Files are obsolete, I believe. Better code repositories would look more like RDBMS's so that we can use set theory on field info, UI layout, and event code instead of hierarchies. Set theory is more powerful than hierarchies and OOP inheritance. The future will eventually take us there, I believe. We are doing it wrong; stuck in the "tree past" out of habit. The Sets are coming. AI may discover this fact and our existing tools will dumped into landfill to be ridiculed the way we ridicule vinyl records and the ET cartridges. Field info/changes can then be entered into one place, and Boom! done. Go home and have sex and don't come back to work: a Set bot is in your chair now.)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        What a bunch of non-sense! Well done Sir!

      • The PROBLEM is the edge cases, which these pre-cast solutions miss.

        Like, I have JSON coming in from a form. I can mechanically loop through it and load them into maps for preparation to load into a database. But some fields need to be concatenated, like dollars and cents fields. Gotta detect for them, as a pair, and take them out of the loop, and handle them differently.

        Other edge cases exist. The general principles exist to guide development, but each company, each agency, each device deals with its infor

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          The PROBLEM is the edge cases, which these pre-cast solutions miss. Like, I have JSON coming in from a form. I can mechanically loop through it and load them into maps for preparation to load into a database. But some fields need to be concatenated, like dollars and cents fields. Gotta detect for them, as a pair, and take them out of the loop, and handle them differently.

          I didn't recommend pre-cast solutions in an off-the-shelf sense. If your shop uses a lot of monetary fields that are split like this, then

    • The robot isnt taking your job itâ(TM)s doing your job for you. Get your unfair share by taxing it. Take the robots salary even though it is doing 10x the work.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jeremi ( 14640 )

      when the world doesn't need ditch diggers? Pretty obvious that it's time to figure that out.

      If we accept the premise (that robots and/or AI will be doing jobs previously performed by people), then there are only a few plausible outcomes:

      a) Those people will find different jobs to do instead.

      b) Those people end up permanently impoverished (e.g. getting by on welfare, crime, or charity, or just starving and dying)

      c) Society finds some systematic way to share the robot-generated wealth, so that instead of benefitting only the owners of the robots, it benefits everyone. (This would require decoupling

  • Tight Market (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I've worked in various Amazon DCs for 9 years. Their robotic facilities demand the same headcount as a non robotic site, they just stick more people in the boring pick/pack cells to get more shit out the doors. The reason for this is the state of the economy... Too many people have full time jobs that pay more or the same as what Amazon is willing to offer so they need to resort to hiring people who have no GED (which is fine) or even with a criminal history. Also in the market I'm in they've exhausted a

  • ERR NEEERRR!!! The Robutts are replacing us!! Seriously though why don't these people learn a trade or something? Most places will start you around $10-12/hr not knowing shit. Obviously depends on where you live. But they obviously have no career path they should pickup any trade they have an interest in. Don't have a job you don't like enjoy even if it pays more money.

  • ... wouldn't that allow you to NOT hire so many PART timers?

  • Maybe that is why Amazon is in favor of higher minimum wages. It is a competitive advantage for them. Robots don't have a minimum wage ;-)

  • Another possibility is Amazon's recent starting pay increase. Very simply that means each employee costs more. And the budget for this year might provide only a certain amount of money for the work force. IOW, they don't want to exceed their budget.

    lgw's comment is correct:

    All these robots do is move shelves full of bins around. That's it. They don't sort. They don't pack. They don't ship. They help with picking (and stowing) by bringing the shelves to the human who does everything except walk to the shelves.

    We know people who work in a distro center near us. People handle the products in all phases. I think some automation is used to pull the inventory (off the high shelving), but then the robotic pallets simply move the bins around the ware

  • Video from a Wired Business Conference

    How the Amazon Warehouse Works [chonday.com]

    Or a series of pics from Business Insider.

    See what it's like inside Amazon's massive warehouses [businessinsider.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close