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

#91

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#92

Post by tdb7893 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #62

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…

The source of the problem is simple. Real societal value is generated through this activity, but it is reaped entirely by Uniqlo and its stakeholders. Yes, consumers are also a stakeholder, but your typical consumer will receive very little or no direct benefit from this change. Eventually, yes, the profits will be reinvested, but the impact will be so diluted as to be a noticeable. Some small fraction of it will pro…

Wouldn't this mainly just be a problem if there wasn't much competition in the market? If cost savings aren't being passed on to the consumers I would blame lack of competition before I consided blaming automation

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

#93

Post by ferongr » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

excalibur wrote: post #5

How about instead of selling robots to companies to replace their laborers, we sell robots to the workers to do their jobs. You keep getting paid as long as you keep your robot running.

A "robot" usually replaces multiple meatbags.

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

#94

Post by Nition » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

lozaning wrote: post #42

kopo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Star Trek doesn't everyone have their own Replicator than can churn out anything? Why does someone even need to get paid? Just make one from your replicator and ship it to a friend in need.

Just use your replicator to make another replicator and send them that!

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a fish replicator...

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

#95

Post by endtime » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

DrNuke wrote: post #40

endtime wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't a socialist be happy that the laborers are no longer being exploited?

The masses still need to eat or are we just letting them starve?

[flagged]

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

#96

Post by stickfigure » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

nerdponx wrote: post #62

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…

The source of the problem is simple. Real societal value is generated through this activity, but it is reaped entirely by Uniqlo and its stakeholders. Yes, consumers are also a stakeholder, but your typical consumer will receive very little or no direct benefit from this change. Eventually, yes, the profits will be reinvested, but the impact will be so diluted as to be a noticeable. Some small fraction of it will pro…

your typical consumer will receive very little or no direct benefit from this change

Eh? I've shopped at Uniqlo in SF. Compared to buying clothes at hipster boutiques, it was shockingly affordable. I'd say whatever they are doing is unquestionably offering a direct benefit to the consumer.

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

#97

Post by zjaffee » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:48 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.

This isn't true, most democrats do not support redistribution of wealth, where leftists who do support the redistribution of wealth are generally in favor of gun rights.

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

#98

Post by knieveltech » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:48 PM UTC

ColanR wrote: post #88

nerdponx wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The source of the problem is simple. Real societal value is generated through this activity, but it is reaped entirely by Uniqlo and its stakeholders. Yes, consumers are also a stakeholder, but your typical consumer will receive very little or no direct benefit from this change. Eventually, yes, the profits will be reinvested, but the impact will be so diluted as to be a noticeable. Some small fraction of it will pro…

The other thing they don't teach you in Econ 101 is that treating corporations as obligated to keep and preserve jobs prevents them from creating societal value, and treating workers as entitled to a job disincentivises the invention of new methods of creating societal value. It causes stagnation of the economy.

And what is Econ 201's solution to pervasive unemployment, or lack of spending power due to underemployment? Is that also classified as "societal value"?

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

#99

Post by mschuster91 » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:49 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #57

SequoiaHope wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bus…

These capital requirements are regulations that have been introduced as a response to companies fleecing the poor-ish, the uneducated and those who had a bit of cash, but decided to put it into one (fraudulent) investment.

Drop them and you'll see what already is happening in the cryptocoin scene: people getting exploited left and right. Point is, no sofa investor will be a shark and get rich, contrary to the ICO promises.

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

#100

Post by fucking_tragedy » Wed, Oct 10, 2018, 9:49 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #57

SequoiaHope wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bus…

That could create a moral hazard, where businesses court mom & pop investors, who don't have the means to pursue legal action against the company should they do something less than scrupulous with their investments, instead of investors with the means to hold them accountable.