Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots • Hacker News Board

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#51

Post by x220 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

codefined wrote: post #44

lghh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we plan on finding a way. That's why we're discussing alternatives. We can find a way by accident.

So, the first shift was manual labour being automated during the industrial revolution. Now slowly intellectual jobs are being replaced. The only unique aspect a human has after this are emotional jobs (psychiatrist, etc). There are not enough emotional jobs that can be created to fulfill 7 billion people (a quickly rising number). I think we're going to need a shift in the mindset of people. Jobs aren't required, we…

>There are not enough emotional jobs that can be created to fulfill 7 billion people

I hope the number of emotive-based jobs increase in the future, because mental health is an under-served problem. But the number of emotive-based jobs will never be enough for everyone because those jobs require a certain kind of sensitive, agreeable, or sociable personality.

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#52

Post by core-questions » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

krupan wrote: post #39

liquidise wrote: post #3

Modern societies are going to have a very real problem to grapple with as this replacement goes from newsworthy to the norm. This could result in significant worker displacement with massive bottom-line ROI for companies in the next decade or two, particularly as minimum wages rise. I'm not of the opinion that this automation will create an equal number of jobs for the ones they replace. Even if they do, it is unlike…

We've been replacing jobs with automation for a century. It already is the norm. Why are you so worried? EDIT: more thoughts I just finished reading an Asimov novel written in 1955. There were computers in this book. They were people. Computer was a job title. Now we have machines that do that job, and we have an entire new industry employing lots and lots of people that didn't exist before that one job, Computer, wa…

It's a good sentiment, but the replacement of fast-food workers with robots won't really open up a whole new field in the same sense. Robotics and AI are wonderful and interesting fields, but honestly, let's not kid ourselves, most people who are flipping burgers probably aren't going to go on to work in the field of building their own replacements.

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#53

Post by pjmorris » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:10 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #29

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At some point this boils over and the ultra wealthy are forced to redistribute wealth either through new political policy or by violent force Not necessarily. The same robotic technology that decouples low-skill labour inputs and outputs is decoupling populations from force projection capabilities. Less cynically, there are organic ways for the situation to positively evolve ( e.g. higher across-board labour produc…

Can you expand on this? I don't understand which populations you're referring to as having become decoupled from force projection? In the US at least, there's 1+ gun for every man, woman, and child. Even if the elite class is backed by the entire US military, there's something to be said for overwhelming force of numbers.

Even without guns, it's much easier to break a robot than it is to operate one. I think the economics of the physical economy favor the physical masses over the paper wealthy.

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#54

Post by core-questions » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

justfor1comment wrote: post #41

liquidise wrote: post #3

Modern societies are going to have a very real problem to grapple with as this replacement goes from newsworthy to the norm. This could result in significant worker displacement with massive bottom-line ROI for companies in the next decade or two, particularly as minimum wages rise. I'm not of the opinion that this automation will create an equal number of jobs for the ones they replace. Even if they do, it is unlike…

Most likely two outcomes. Either everyone will be given a basic income for meeting their needs or the robot revolution will make goods so cheap that very little money/effort will be needed purchase things. Most of the jobs may move to the entertainment and healthcare industry.

What if we're not satisfied with mincome and soma, and we want something more? With no framework to provide for useful productivity, what will young people end up doing? A lazy population with no way to differentiate and striate financially will find other ways of anteing up over each other, including criminal acts...

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#55

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:12 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #50

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't compare themselves to how people lived 80 years ago. They compare themselves to other people, today. So saying "Look poor people, who cares if you can't afford decent housing, or health care, or quality food - you've got a cell phone!" will not quiet the social unrest that a growing underclass will cause.

Overall though, more people have healthcare, more people have housing, and more people have food than ever before. No one is arguing, 'cellphone, hence no poverty'. People are merely arguing that the lowest 10% are no longer destitute.

Yes, I agree the lowest 10% are no longer as destitute, but my point is the dangerous social unrest that is likely to be caused (some would argue already has been caused) by widening inequality is not something that absolute measures of living standards will have much bearing on.

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#56

Post by petra » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:12 PM UTC

liquidise wrote: post #3

Modern societies are going to have a very real problem to grapple with as this replacement goes from newsworthy to the norm. This could result in significant worker displacement with massive bottom-line ROI for companies in the next decade or two, particularly as minimum wages rise. I'm not of the opinion that this automation will create an equal number of jobs for the ones they replace. Even if they do, it is unlike…

high skill jobs are at risk too.

It's reasonable to assume, given recent tech developments(AI, low code for software, generative design for graphic design/engineering and architecture, blockchain for professions working on trust in transaction like accounting, some automation in the legal field, automation in insurance) that many high-skill professions will suffer unemployment too.

And can someone with high-skill job always shift to another high-skill job? pretty hard, many high skill jobs have very high barriers to entry. And could they aim for the low skill burger flipping job ? Who will get the job, some spoiled engineer, or someone who is used to working hard doing hard labor for low pay and may be younger ?

So why is everybody under the assumption that high skill jobs are safe ?

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#57

Post by tathougies » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

SequoiaHope wrote: post #45

sharkweek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lower class gets bigger and bigger, and is either kept just happy enough to not revolt or... At some point this boils over and the ultra wealthy are forced to redistribute wealth either through new political policy or by violent force.

An alternative, which I advocate for, is that the lower class form productive collectives, stop contributing to the ultra wealthy, and generate their own real wealth. Much of the worlds wealth exists in wealth-generating infrastructure and information that is accessible to all of us. If we simply divest from the ultra wealthy and build a new economy based on cooperation, we can construct a system that inherently lift…

One concrete step can be getting rid of the capital requirements (by regulation) to invest. The idea of 'qualified investors' is literally a way to keep poor people poor, and rich people rich, by cutting off poor or middle class people from the major vehicles of wealth creation. It is ridiculous that I cannot invest in the IPO of a company in my local neighborhood because, while I have enough money to satisfy the business, I don't have enough money to satisfy uncle sam's onerous requirements.

But yes, cooperatives like Mondragon are good examples, and also incredibly traditional.

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#58

Post by krupan » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #52

krupan wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've been replacing jobs with automation for a century. It already is the norm. Why are you so worried? EDIT: more thoughts I just finished reading an Asimov novel written in 1955. There were computers in this book. They were people. Computer was a job title. Now we have machines that do that job, and we have an entire new industry employing lots and lots of people that didn't exist before that one job, Computer, wa…

It's a good sentiment, but the replacement of fast-food workers with robots won't really open up a whole new field in the same sense. Robotics and AI are wonderful and interesting fields, but honestly, let's not kid ourselves, most people who are flipping burgers probably aren't going to go on to work in the field of building their own replacements.

"the replacement of fast-food workers with robots won't really open up a whole new field in the same sense"

No, it won't look exactly like moving from human computers to machine computers. It won't look exactly like moving from manual farming to tractors and combines. It's hard to imagine what it will look like, but it seems overly pessimistic to just assume that this time automation is going to turn out terribly.

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#59

Post by tathougies » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:15 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #55

tathougies wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Overall though, more people have healthcare, more people have housing, and more people have food than ever before. No one is arguing, 'cellphone, hence no poverty'. People are merely arguing that the lowest 10% are no longer destitute.

Yes, I agree the lowest 10% are no longer as destitute, but my point is the dangerous social unrest that is likely to be caused (some would argue already has been caused) by widening inequality is not something that absolute measures of living standards will have much bearing on.

You attacked a very poor interpretation of the parent comment then. Claiming ' they may have iphones, but they don't have food ' is patently ridiculous.

Re: Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

#60

Post by setr » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:16 PM UTC

endtime wrote: post #36

mikepurvis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you expand on this? I don't understand which populations you're referring to as having become decoupled from force projection? In the US at least, there's 1+ gun for every man, woman, and child. Even if the elite class is backed by the entire US military, there's something to be said for overwhelming force of numbers.

The gun owners are typically on the other side of the aisle from those who support redistribution of wealth. Not saying that couldn't change or that desperation can't trump principle, of course.

I don’t know if thats true: I think everyone wants a “fair” distribution of wealth. The question is in the definition of fair, and means to achieve it. Conservatives believe that distribution achieved by tax and regulation will hurt the total economic production of the US, and lead to everyone being worse off, though more equal (in the extreme: everyone is equally poor), and they also consider it fair that the distribution is unequal (as do liberals). Its just a matter of how unequal.

But at least part of their definition of includes that they have the chance to increase their position, which is incompatible with tax/regulation at the extreme: if everyone has their incomes set in stone by the government, there is no chance to change in status.

But losing all low-level jobs to robots, notably, removes that chance. For different reasons than the liberal (who dislikes it for the centralization of wealth/power, and the extreme polarization of wealth distribution), conservatives would intuitively be against it for the denial of opportunity across the board

Tldr: everyone hates being poor/homeless, and too many people being homeless will cause a revolt regardless of their individual political leanings.