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

#281

Post by PeterisP » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 12:46 PM UTC

mmcconnell1618 wrote: post #153

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…

The jobs you listed have largely been augmented rather than replaced. You’re also not accounting for new jobs we can’t even imagine yet. Ten years ago no one would think YouTuber or Instragram model would be viable jobs for some people. Social media directors at companies large and small have to find unique ways to engage with other humans. The guy that fixes cracked screens on smartphones couldn’t have done that in…

On a large scale, there's no meaningful difference between augmenting or replacing a job.

If an industry augments a function employing 100000 people so that every person can do twice as much, then that has the exact same effect as fully replacing a function that employed 50000 people; in both cases they need 50000 people less and they should do something else.

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

#282

Post by PeterisP » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 12:53 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.

There are some indications that relative inequality creates vocal anger and unrest, however, it generally takes quite low levels of actual living standards (or physical security) before masses of people become willing to actually risk their lives in violent overthrows of the regime.

Historically, "Bread and circuses" is sufficient to keep disgruntled poor masses just disgruntled but not revolting; regimes get overthrown either when the rulers can't provide bread anymore, when they do unbearable physical harm (e.g. disappearances, torture, etc), or when an external force comes in. And currently it's not a big burden on the economy to just provide lots of cheap food and entertainment for everyone to pacify them, that can be done with just a few percent of GDP.

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

#283

Post by taneq » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 12:53 PM UTC

leesec wrote: post #76

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> as people we generally hate going to work, but at the same time we also fear losing our incomes

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

#284

Post by nerdponx » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 1:02 PM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #228

nerdponx wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already receive that benefit. Will prices go down as a result of this automation? Will the freed resources be cleanly rerouted to other activities? Hell no, if there wasn't an article you'd never have noticed.

> Will prices go down ... you'd never have noticed. Note that these two are entirely compatible. Prices routinely go down and customers receive benefit but they do not notice. For example, I wrote about research on effect of barcode scanner here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11414435

Interesting, thank you.

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

#285

Post by EpicEng » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 1:04 PM UTC

lovich wrote: post #229

EpicEng wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Will prices go down as a result of this automation? Can you name a single instance where prices did _not_ go down due to automation? You're saying process won't go down tomorrow, but of course that's not how any of this works.

Prices don't go down unless there is competition. If a company figures our a way to make massive cost savings while their competition does not, they pocket that margin and use it to either invest in more productive capacity or give back to shareholders. They don't feel some ethical need to lower prices just because they can Automation is correlated with cost savings for consumers because usually the competition can f…

>If a company figures our a way to make massive cost savings while their competition does not, they pocket that margin and use it to either invest in more productive capacity or give back to shareholders.

Well sure, but in what world is that going to happen in here? They didn't invent time travel; they automated a factory. This can be replicated. They may also lower prices simply to undercut competitors if they think the increase in volume will work out to more profits overall.

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

#286

Post by PeterisP » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 1:08 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 reason why this seems unrealistic is that if "the lower class form productive collectives", they stop contributing to the ultra wealthy but will not generate their own real wealth. Currently, wealth generation is not really labor-limited (especially for the kind of labor that the lower class of population can do), and such a collective wouldn't generate much if any wealth because as "automation will increase our productivity", they'll be less productive than the ultra-wealthy - such a cooperative by definition would be labor-rich but capital-poor and thus would/could automate less than the ultra-wealthy that they abandoned. Organizations that have easy access to capital and difficult access to labor will outcompete organizations that have easy access to labor and difficult access to capital.

In late 19th century capitalists absolutely relied on laborers to create their wealth, in late 21th century capitalists rely on investments in automation to create their wealth, and they have limited need for the lower class laborers. Already right now there are millions of jobs that could be automated but aren't just because you can get dirt cheap labor to do it manually (e.g. textile/footwear industry in SE Asia) - and as soon as the laborers start asking for decent income (or simply the tech falls in price, as it does over time) the laborers will get replaced with automation.

And the displaced workers won't be able to form productive collectives, because in that economic scenario, to be productive and efficient, you need to do the same thing with few people and lots of (expensive) machines; the whole reason why they become displaced is that most of their labor objectively isn't useful anymore - it won't become any more useful if they form up into a collective.

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

#287

Post by geezerjay » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 1:19 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #193

existencebox wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be a slight tangent, but I always took the interpretation of Metropolis as one of humans being _reduced_ to the level of machines (and in some ways subservient to them), less in replacement; the "moloch" scene comes to mind. The only robot in the movie seemed more an analog for questions of humanity, blurring the line of human and machine, and additionally touching on the whole classic "reviving a loved one"…

> humans being _reduced_ to the level of machines (and in some ways subservient to them) Oh, you mean like Uber and Deliveroo drivers? In the last century, humans served machines. In this century, they will serve algorithms. Lang's work is more relevant than ever. In many ways we are re-living the events of 100 years ago, only this time the US are in the driving seat, rather than Europe.

> Oh, you mean like Uber and Deliveroo drivers?

How is that any different than a waiter working for a restaurant or cafe? The old nature of things doesn't change if you replace a notepad with a web service.

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

#288

Post by merpnderp » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 1:57 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #276

merpnderp wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling a person they can't own something because they might create too much value, sure seems antithetical to western values of personal freedom. And why not take your idea further. Only one person per truck? Per acre of farmland? Per airplane? Per computer? Per pencil? Per lathe? Why shed a tear over lost crappy factory jobs when those people might be better employed fixing the robots, at a higher wage and skill se…

The modern Western ideas of personal freedom with respect to property arose in conjunction with a particular economic system that made sense at the time. But, as any economic system, it has its constraints. Right now, it works because ownership of capital is pointless without a labor force to make it produce things - so you can have capital concentrated a lot, but the workers still get a slice of the pie for working…

"i.e. whatever remains of the high middle class by then" but for every person who leaves the middle class to become poor, more than one person leaves to become upper middle class. The middle class is shrinking, but a slight majority of those are leaving it to join the ranks of the well off.

We obviously have a problem, but it's how to make the poorer more valuable through education and training, not how to make the well off less valuable through arbitrary productivity restrictions.

IE, sorry, doctors make too much money so we've capped their patients at 20. Versus, doctors make too much money, so we've streamlined more people to become nurse practitioners and PA's.

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

#289

Post by endtime » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 2:31 PM UTC

endtime wrote: post #168

zjaffee wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which Democrats don't support redistribution of wealth? I didn't know any such Democrats existed.

This was intended as a serious question in good faith so the downvotes and lack of responses are unfortunate.

To elaborate: Hillary Clinton's 2016 platform included increasing the inheritance tax, and she's about as centrist as Democrats get these days. The inheritance tax is redistributive. Did any Democrats come out against her position? https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/09/23/hillary-c...

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

#290

Post by pjmorris » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 3:07 PM UTC

jedharris wrote: post #236

pjmorris wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it easier to break a tank than operate one? Then why a robot?

I think I misplaced my post, the intent was to respond to someone arguing that automation would help the wealthy quell the poor. Any comments I make about robots apply to machinery in general.

To your question, it is easier to break a tank than to operate one. Anti-tank weapons are cheaper than tanks, and range down to well-timed Molotov cocktails [0].

[0] https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-Molotov-cocktail-destroy-a-t...