Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 314 posts

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

#71

Post by gpm »

lgessler wrote: post #64
petra wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Software engineering seems safe, if that is what you are primarily thinking of in your question. Developing software at the same level of a skilled engineer is a problem we'd only be able to solve with general AI. Even if program synthesizers (things that take declarative high level requirements and produce code) worked (and they don't at the level required for an non-technical user to use), most engineers today must…

It's not at all clear that software engineering is safe.

Sure there will probably always be a few programmers, but as tools (and soon I expect AI) gets better those programmers can do more and more of the work. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find the number of software engineers decreasing in the not too distant future.

The only reason it hasn't already is that we've managed to grow the number of things software developers are doing at the same rate as the increase in number of software developers * the increase in efficiency per software developer. And in some parts of software development (e.g. games) it has.

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

#72

Post by forkLding »

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…

Theres already a lot of automation at car factories and places which heavily rely on machinery to produce goods. I remember seeing that the only people needed is people to repair the machinery if it broke down and the whole manufacturing process being automated with self-driving carts moving around the materials. Note this was a Toyota factory, so it could be skewed.

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

#73

Post by munificent »

darkstar999 wrote: post #32
x220 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>move to another job And when that job gets automated?

We used to be 90%+ farmers. We'll find a way.

Between there and here are several violent revolutions where millions died. It would be nice to find a safer way.

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

#74

Post by jimbokun »

saas_sam wrote: post #24
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.

What if the lower class is getting simultaneously bigger and also better off? Do you think the bottom 10% is living as bad as they were in 1940? 1980? Things that used to be luxuries are now normal across all income brackets... That's a good thing. :-)

Globally this may be true, but it's just false for the US. Wages haven't increased since the 1970s, and now even metrics like life expectancy are falling.

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

#75

Post by tathougies »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #65
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.

I'm not sure if that's a helpful observation, though. The floor for the "lowest" percentile in America is outright destitution. Homelessness means no shelter from the elements or people that want to hurt you, possessions beyond what you can carry and defend, no health care, and being treated like a second class citizen.

I would be interested in the numbers, but based on my experience of homelessness in California, most homelessness is due to severe mental health issues, not poverty. I'm unsure of any data suggesting these kinds of mental health issues are increasing, but I'd be interested in the data.

Also, having seen the situation in third world countries, I have a real issue calling American homelessness destitution, but I understand the arguments from social cohesion.

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

#76

Post by leesec »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #46
darkstar999 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We used to be 90%+ farmers. We'll find a way.

Then give some examples. The "well, we've always found a way before" is just hand waving without specifics. Importantly, if you consider a model where the rate of technological progress steadily increases, it's very possible that rate at one point will overtake the rate at which new jobs are created. When/if that happens, the calamity will come quite suddenly, even if decades and centuries prior we always found more…

I do find it hilarious that as people we generally hate going to work, but at the same time we also fear losing our jobs.

Jobs/careers are a relatively new idea as far as I know, I think we can figure out something to do without them.

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

#77

Post by JoeAltmaier »

krupan wrote: post #58
core-questions wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because its been terrible before? The industrial revolution was a time of starvation and death for the families of the displaced.

The issue isn't how to keep people busy. That's not a very worthy goal. In the '50s we dreamed of a society where robots took the yoke from our shoulders and let us live better lives. Now that it's happening, all we can talk about is how to get people back to work!

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

#78

Post by gpm »

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.

Guns have limited range, and are easily rendered largely ineffective (e.g. armored vehicles). Robots and other advanced weapons make direct combat entirely one sided. Surveillance apparatus allows identifying combatants attempting a guerilla warfare approach. AI could allow identifying an assassin attempting to draw a weapon and killing them before they could get a shot off. Etc.

Against the current US military I dare say that overwhelming numbers would win, against a theoretical future military that is less clear. Moreover the current US military would probably revolt if used to overtly oppress the population, but a more robotized one with humans only required at high levels might not.

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

#79

Post by pkaye »

darkstar999 wrote: post #33
pkaye wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not the workers invest in the company that sells the robots?

The people being replaced by automation don't have the means to invest in anything.

But they would have the means to buy the robots as OP has posted?

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

#80

Post by kmlx »

Japan has always embraced automation, is a staple in robotics and overall could prove to be a good model to have instead of the constant fear mongering about automation in the west. It’s not like this sort of change hasn’t happend before; it’s just that now we have the internet which amplifies our fears (and there’s also lots more of us on the planet).
Post reply on HN