Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics China

Almost Half of Industrial Robots Are In China (engineering.com) 68

Posted by BeauHD from the manufacturing-might dept.
According to a new report from the International Federation of Robotics (IFR), China now has almost half of all the world's robot installations and that it is increasing its lead rapidly. Engineering.com reports: The IFR, which exists to "promote research, development, use and international co-operation in the entire field of robotics," has been reporting that China has been the world leader in implementing industrial robots for the last 8 years. We have not been paying attention. In 3 years, China has almost doubled the number of industrial robot installations. With its 243,000 robot installations in 2020, China has almost half of all the industrial robots in the world, according to the Wall Street Journal.

A majority of new industrial robots are used in electronics manufacture (for circuit boards, consumer electronics, etc.) and in automobile assembly, particularly in the surging production of electric vehicles (EVs).One must wonder why China, a country with so much cheap manual labor available, would opt for expensive robots with their special demands for tech support. China may have a giant population (1.4 billion people), but its workforce is actually decreasing, says the IFR, due to an increasing segment of its population aging and a growing competition for service jobs. China also expects a leveling off of its rural-to-urban migration. China's government is determined not to let a declining workforce cause a drop in manufacturing, and as only a centralized, authoritarian government can, it has made robotizing a national priority and has mobilized its forces.

China's latest five-year plan for the robotics industry, released in December 2021 by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), aims for nothing less than making China a world leader in robot technology and industrial automation. And it appears to be working. China went from 10 robots per ten thousand employees 10 years ago to 246 robots per ten thousand employees in 2020, the ninth best ranking in the world. To keep the robots state of the art and operational, China's Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security introduced 18 new occupational titles in June, including "robotics engineering technician."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Almost Half of Industrial Robots Are In China More

Almost Half of Industrial Robots Are In China

Comments Filter:

  • How many what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Sunday September 25, 2022 @04:30PM (#62913163)

    What exactly is a robot?

    Every 3d printer is a small "industrial robot."

    In the context of "electronics manufacture (for circuit boards)" it means a pick-and-place machine.

    One must wonder why China, a country with so much cheap manual labor available, would opt for expensive robots

    Because they're not expensive robots, most of these are just x-y tables. Things that nerds around the world build in their garages.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by LifesABeach ( 234436 )

      metrology.
      the measure of craftsmanship.

      irony.
      my 3 d printer was made in china.
      and it works pretty good

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The story says "industrial robot". That does not include CNCs like a 3d printer.

      • The story says "industrial robot". That does not include CNCs like a 3d printer.

        Define robot:
        Robot, any automatically operated machine that replaces human effort, though it may not resemble human beings in appearance or perform functions in a humanlike manner.
        https://www.britannica.com/tec... [britannica.com]

        A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically.[2] A robot can be guided by an external control device, or the control may be embedded within. Robots may be constructed to evoke human form, but most

      • What's an "industrial robot"? It's a robot used by industry. That 100% absolutely does include "CNCs like a 3d printer" (What do you think a manufacturing robot is if not "a CNC"?) if they are used for industry.

        I promise you China is counting those machines

      • An industrial welding robot, for example, is just a type of CNC. (lol)

    • On Monday's. I'm a robot.
      On Tuesday's. I'm a robot.
      On Wednesday's. I'm a robot.
      On Thursday's. I'm a robot
      On Friday's. I'm a robot.
      On Saturday's. I'm a robot.
      On Sunday. I'm a ROBOT!

      --
      It does not matter how slowly you go as long as you do not stop. - Confucius

  • Before reading this headline, I would have guessed that the level was about 50%. was the headline supposed to surprise the reading?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Well, China is going to be massively ahead in industrial production capability. They are already ahead. Some people will be very surprised by that, others have seen it happening over the last decades.

      • China is ahead, but rather than gaining ground, they are actually losing it — our exports to china are up 500% since 2001 [ustr.gov] and continue to increase year on year. The US still has massive exports of manufactured goods (~1.3T) but most of it is big stuff. We are still world leaders in construction and farming equipment, for example. The profit per unit is massive. It takes more machines to make less profit making more cellphones.

  • What are they going to do with almost half of an industrial robot?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GoTeam ( 5042081 )

      What are they going to do with almost half of an industrial robot?

      Depends on if they got the top half or the bottom half...

  • It looks like China's government (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Sunday September 25, 2022 @04:36PM (#62913179)
    Thinks they have sufficient control of their population to begin a massive push into automation. I remember seeing articles where the Chinese government forbid foxconn from automating because they didn't want the social unrest from tens of millions of people suddenly unemployed. Guess they're not worried about that social unrest anymore. It makes sense because the installed a dictator recently. Xi is effectively president for life (or I guess they call him chairman I don't know, a dictator by any other name would be as psychotic)

    Right now the problem is the rate of job destruction is going to outpace the rate of job creation. That's actually been going on in America but you wouldn't know it if you didn't live in the rust belt or parts of the South. You can find a article from Business insider that shows that 70% of middle class jobs in America since the 1980s were lost to automation. This is why 29% of our workforce is currently doing what can charitably called gig economy work.

    In short we're about to see a massive push for automation and there aren't going to be enough new jobs to absorb the unemployed. Birth rates are down but the problem there is that our entire civilization is built from the ground up for limitless growth. And if you don't work you don't eat mentalities. Yeah in 100 years they'll probably be advanced technologies that create new jobs but that's not going to help us now.

    And for everyone safe in the knowledge that they're not going to be laid off your boss is going to be eyeing that massive surplus of workers when it comes time to discuss your compensation and the amount of unpaid overtime you're going to be working.

    Oh and those masses of unemployed people are going to be eyeing everything you have. Yeah you can hire a security guard but do you think he's going to take a bullet for $12 an hour? Or maybe you'll splurge and pay 15. Still don't think he's going to take a bullet for you

    • I remember seeing articles where the Chinese government forbid foxconn from automating because they didn't want the social unrest from tens of millions of people suddenly unemployed. Guess they're not worried about that social unrest anymore.

      The CPP might be gambling it could buy off the unrest, the way the petroleum exporting countries have done. Maybe the PRC would be one of the first countries to implement a universal basic income, for everybody except those nasty dissidents and separatists. At that poin

    • Re:It looks like China's government (Score:5, Interesting)

      by blahabl ( 7651114 ) on Sunday September 25, 2022 @05:33PM (#62913305)

      Thinks they have sufficient control of their population to begin a massive push into automation. I remember seeing articles where the Chinese government forbid foxconn from automating because they didn't want the social unrest from tens of millions of people suddenly unemployed. Guess they're not worried about that social unrest anymore. It makes sense because the installed a dictator recently. Xi is effectively president for life (or I guess they call him chairman I don't know, a dictator by any other name would be as psychotic)

      No, they have low enough unemployment [wikipedia.org]. China is at 5.4%, for comparison EU *average* is 6.0% (and Spain has 12.5%, etc). Considering it's a rather conservative society, with lots of "unemployed and NOT seeking employment" housewives in rural areas, that's pretty good.

      In short we're about to see a massive push for automation and there aren't going to be enough new jobs to absorb the unemployed. Birth rates are down but the problem there is that our entire civilization is built from the ground up for limitless growth. And if you don't work you don't eat mentalities. Yeah in 100 years they'll probably be advanced technologies that create new jobs but that's not going to help us now.

      You luddite idiots have been going on about that since the start of Industrial Revolution, and yet, it's 2022, robots are in every factory, and unemployment in US is what, 3.5%?

      • "The unemployment rate measures the share of workers in the labor force who do not currently have a job but are actively looking for work. People who have not looked for work in the past four weeks are not included in this measure."

        https://www.epi.org/newsroom/u... [epi.org]

        So your comment about China's percentage being pretty good with so many people who won't even search for work is confusing.

        I will admit I wonder how they count the people attempting vs. not. If you're on unemployment, then that's easy. But do th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jbengt ( 874751 )

          The unemployment rate measures the share of workers in the labor force who do not currently have a job but are actively looking for work.

          That's only one definition of one type of unemployment metric. Granted, it's the type most often reported. You can easily find statistics on unemployment that includes discouraged workers who gave up looking. [bls.gov] Also, do you really think students, retirees, and stay-at-home moms should count in the unemployment numbers even when that is their choice?

          I will admit I wonder

      • coming from? I find it hard to believe China wouldn't cook the books like crazy. Hell my own country does.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        You luddite idiots have been going on about that since the start of Industrial Revolution, and yet, it's 2022, robots are in every factory, and unemployment in US is what, 3.5%

        It does magnify boom and bust cycles because more day-to-day work is automated. Designers and engineers take a big hit during a slump because they are not needed in the short-term.

        • Designers and engineers take a big hit during a slump

          No, they don't. Engineering employment falls less than the general decline during most recessions. The 2001 dotcom implosion was a rare exception.

          because they are not needed in the short-term.

          That's backward. During a recession, the short-term is what you want to cut because consumers aren't buying, so assembly line workers lose their jobs. Engineers are working on products that will hit the market after the economy recovers, so it makes more sense to keep them.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jbengt ( 874751 )

            No, they don't. Engineering employment falls less than the general decline during most recessions. The 2001 dotcom implosion was a rare exception.

            Depends on the field of engineering.
            As a mechanical engineer, mostly HVAC, plumbing, & fire protection, I was extremely busy during the dotcom boom and bust, basically no change during the 2001 recession.
            On the other hand, I almost lost my job in the early 1980s and did lose my job in 2009 (My company was involved in a lot of condominium projects that stopp

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Tablizer ( 95088 )

            > so assembly line workers lose their jobs

            Every department takes a hit, but typically if you lose 20% sales, you reduce assembly line by 20%. You still need enough to make product to sell.

            > The 2001 dotcom implosion was a rare exception.

            Is it? It's hard to really know, being that an IT-driven economy is relatively new.

            Kind of a side issue, but I expect there will be a big drop in dev need if a better web UI standard comes along, because using JS/CSS/DOM to reinvent GUI idioms that have been around si

        • You luddite idiots have been going on about that since the start of Industrial Revolution, and yet, it's 2022, robots are in every factory, and unemployment in US is what, 3.5%

          It does magnify boom and bust cycles because more day-to-day work is automated. Designers and engineers take a big hit during a slump because they are not needed in the short-term.

          STEM people are the last ones who need to worry about employment, whatever phase the economy is at.

          • > STEM people are the last ones who need to worry about employment, whatever phase the economy is at.

            I lived in CA during the dot-com crash, and it find a dev job was nasty. I ended up contracting out of state, but that was hard on the family for obvious reasons.

            And engineers took a hit during the "glasnost" defense industry cut-backs of the early 1990's. I personally knew engineers who suffered. Ever see the movie Falling Down?

            Nothing in guaranteed in the job market, don't get complacent.

      • You luddite idiots have been going on about that since the start of Industrial Revolution, and yet, it's 2022, robots are in every factory, and unemployment in US is what, 3.5%?

        Sure, if you believe the U-2 rate. But since that's constructed to be deliberately false, repeating it is incredibly stupid.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jbengt ( 874751 )

          Sure, if you believe the U-2 rate. But since that's constructed to be deliberately false, repeating it is incredibly stupid.

          First of all, the U-2 rate is based on "job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs, as a percent of the civilian labor force", which is not typically reported in the general news.

          So maybe you mean the U-3 rate: "Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)", which is reported as 3.7% in August.

          Note that the U-4 rate, "Total unemp

    • I'm way ahead of you guys. I'm gonna set up a company that produces robots that buy & consume stuff made by robots. They'll be cheaper, more reliable, consume at a faster rate, won't need as much maintenance as human consumers, & you won't have to give them workers' rights or pay them a salary. Producers & vendors can expect complete compliance from these consumer robots so advertising will also be cheaper, easier & more efficient than with humans. Human consumers will be redundant in no tim

      • Sci Fi Writer Pohl wrote a story around this in 1954.
        "The Midas Plague"

        • I looked up "The Midas Plague." It's a dystopian novel, not the utopian ideal I seek to achieve. I can program the consumer robots to be happy. They can also administer the contraceptives to eliminate excess human production.

          • Y'know, historically there have been lots of dystopias. I don't know of any utopias. Funny thing is, some of those dystopias were supposed to be utopias on paper.

            You can program the robots to be happy (I wonder why natural selection never programmed humans to be happy, did natural selection just screw up?) and administer contraceptives to humans. What could possibly go wrong?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      Thinks they have sufficient control of their population to begin a massive push into automation. I remember seeing articles where the Chinese government forbid foxconn from automating because they didn't want the social unrest from tens of millions of people suddenly unemployed. Guess they're not worried about that social unrest anymore.

      That's not exactly it. They're more worried about other things in the long run. Because of their one-child policy, aging population, and other factors, China's workforce

    • Right now the problem is the rate of job destruction is going to outpace the rate of job creation.

      Russia has some jobs going as I understand it. About 300k of them.

    • Foxconn has a "fully automated" factory in Chengdu. Since that city is closed for COVID one wonders what a fully automated factory does when it can't get resources delivered, or products picked up, or repair personnel to do maintenance?

      Also, the automation in China is almost uniformly coastal, or along the dried up Yangtze river. Wonder how that's going for getting resources delivered or picked up? Water transport is about 13 times cheaper than rail, providing you already have the rail in the right place

  • Robots are cheaper than cheap labor (Score:5, Informative)

    by Balthisar ( 649688 ) on Sunday September 25, 2022 @05:04PM (#62913237) Homepage

    I worked for an American automotive OEM, a big one that you've heard of, in China from 2011 to 2016 (I still work for the company, just not in China). My specialty is manufacturing, in particular, body manufacturing. Robots are always cheaper, because people are expensive. Everyone thinks of hourly rates, and, sure, that's a big part of it, but there are human factors that contribute to headcount, too.

    It's not a question of one robot == one person, but one robot equals 20 people in many cases. We can buy a Fanuc robot for $50,000. That's a lot cheaper than Chinese, Thai, Taiwan, and even Indian labor. These are all places that I was directly involved in launching entirely new body shops in. I won't share costs for obvious reasons, but these were all highly automated facilities because it was cheaper than labor.

    And if you have someone that knows how to fix one Fanuc robot, you've got someone that can fix all of your Fanuc robots, or direct unskilled people how to fix.

    • We've been trying to treat people like robots for decades, so it makes sense that an actual robot would be an easy win. They can work 24/7 with no breaks.

      The problem comes when any thinking or adaptation needs to happen. Like in the Toyota method they'd have people on the line stop it for any quality issues. I have no idea how you'd go about trying to add a robotic quality control layer on top of the simple arms that I assume a lot of these "robots" are. You don't want to waste materials or time making

      • I have no idea how you'd go about trying to add a robotic quality control layer

        Machine vision has been used in quality control for decades.

        It was one of the very first applications and a big driver of machine vision improvements.

  • Quote from the article:

    "China a world leader in robot technology and industrial automation. And it appears to be working. China went from 10 robots per ten thousand employees 10 years ago to 246 robots per ten thousand employees in 2020, the ninth best ranking in the world."

    Where does the United State fit into that understanding?

    China: "the ninth best ranking in the world."

    What are the 8 higher ranking countries?

    What is being ranked?

  • Byebye jobs and overseas stuff (Score:3)

    by locater16 ( 2326718 ) on Sunday September 25, 2022 @05:29PM (#62913301)
    Here's a cool thing: robots like this can be installed anywhere. Or "automated manufacturing" or whatever you want to call it.

    Point is robots installed in Europe, the US, or China are all pretty close to the same. They'll make the same things the same way to the same tolerances. The differences between them is where the raw materials come from before they get to the robots, and where the buyers are after the products are made. As you probably have to ship a bunch of raw material to the robots no matter where they are, the big question becomes where the product goes afterward. And going as little as possible is as cheap as possible.

    So say a slow goodbye to manufacturing in China for overseas markets. In fact say a slow goodbye to factory jobs altogether, they'll be vanishing in slow motion around the same timeline that radiologists, voice actors, and transport drivers do. Automation will come for all our jobs eventually, but those will be among the next wave on chopping block.
  • How is that possible? If they have so many robots, their productivity per worker would be sky high. But chinese workers are literally one THIRD as productive as US workers. No matter how you quibble over the numbers, their total economy is roughly equal to the US, but they have 3-4 times the workers. You can do the math as well as me.

    How is it possible for a typical US worker to be doing 3-4 times as much while China has so many robots? That simply doesn't add up.

    • Re:Something doesn't add up (Score:5, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Sunday September 25, 2022 @06:11PM (#62913369)
      Well here is one standout statistic. Compare the percentage of people still employed in agriculture:

      In the US, it is down to 1.36 percent [theglobaleconomy.com].

      In China, it is still 25.33 percent [theglobaleconomy.com].

      Employing 20 times as many farmers per capita speaks to a very fundamental lack of modernization in the single most vital sector of the economy.

      • Geez. Wow. 25% of their population is still farming.

        Forget robots. They need tractors.

        Holy crap I just looked this up. The west had that high a percentage of population in agriculture.... in 1900. They're 120 years behind on this metric.

        https://ourworldindata.org/emp... [ourworldindata.org]

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's because a lot of Chinese people are farmers, and if their jobs were automated away then there would be a big unemployment and poverty problem. The problem will resolve itself over time, and their children get educated, get knowledge and service jobs, and they retire and sell off the farm.

        The government isn't going to force it to happen faster and create problems for itself. You can be sure that there are contingency plants in place if some kind of disaster happens though, like the flooding last year.

  • Given China's population they certainly have the body count to manufacture and implement robots and AI.

  • I am aware of a Chinese thrust to build fully automated robotic factories that can switch on a moment's notice to making new designs of products. As the Chinese build these and bring them online this will give them a significant manufacturing advantage for consumer goods. In effect it is a second industrial revolution; the first one was mass production methods such as Ford's car making; this one replaces humans with robots and instant reconfigurability for products, and just-in-time goods production. For e

    • I am aware of a Chinese thrust to build fully automated robotic factories that can switch on a moment's notice to making new designs of products.

      It's not impossible, but it's too early to say it will pay off. The kind of factory that makes one thing cannot simply be reconfigured in software to make another thing, you have to physically move machines around. To make that not true would require a bunch of machines sitting idle on the line while some things are produced, and then a bunch of different machines sitting idle at another time, so it doesn't really make any sense to do that — you really want maximum utilization of your depreciating equ

  • Call me when someone invents a robot that has a proper dexterous hand .. last I checked most products are not designed with robotic manufacture in mind, so they require manual steps.

  • To keep the robots state of the art and operational, China's Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security introduced 18 new occupational titles in June, including "robotics engineering technician."

    China's facing a population decline, so it makes sense to start diverting people from working menial jobs to those of higher skill. Especially if those jobs are going to be fewer in number, but the number of workers will also decline.

  • So, where half the products of the world are produced?
    Why the surprise?

  • ... and as only a centralized, authoritarian government can, it has made robotizing a national priority and has mobilized its forces

    And TFA never even mentions whether this is a good thing. Most central planning efforts fail horribly in the long run because resources get mis-allocated. Perhaps it's a good thing to invest in a ton of robots in China. Maybe China and the world would be better off letting manufacturing move to Viet Nam, Cambodia, the Philippines, or some other place and invest in services, software, and other things. When will we ever learn to at least point out that just because one can mobilize maybe one doesn't want to?

  • How can they do any production with so many half robots?

  • A great leap downward, using robots instead of peasants!
    http://content.time.com/time/m... [time.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

news: gotcha

Close