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

#291

Post by manigandham » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 4:53 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #278

manigandham wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you just discount the rest of the world then you're talking about Plenty of people are still buying homes (unless you think those prices just rose without any buyers) and higher education is not necessary to fill the 6M blue collar jobs that remain open in the US today. You can't just look at some isolated negatives and yet ignore all the positives of change with the immense amount of opportunity available today.

>If you just discount the rest of the world then you're talking about Talking about a country with population of ~325M which we both happen to live in far from being merely "random examples" in my opinion. >higher education is not necessary to fill the 6M blue collar jobs 6M jobs in a country of 325M. That's 2 years worth of high school graduates for you. Not exactly inspiring, don't you think? >The people at the bot…

Yes, talking about a fraction of US population, which itself is just a few percent of global population, while billions of lives have been improved is random samples.

If you must scope your argument that narrowly, it does not hold. The US also has the greatest opportunity and socioeconomic mobility in the world and this has only improved. Your attempting to piece together a narrative from disparate data while ignoring the world, even though we already track measures for what you're talking about and they all show great improvements.

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

#292

Post by darpa_escapee » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 5:28 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #150

darpa_escapee wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homelessness is overwhelmingly caused by economic issues[1][2], even in the Bay area[3], which are certainly exacerbated by mental health issues. [1] https://www.nlchp.org/documents/Homeless_Stats_Fact_Sheet [2] http://homelessresourcenetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/0... [3] https://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2017-10-2...

I have no doubt homelessness in San Francisco is caused by poverty. However, San Francisco is not california. Do your data apply to California as a whole, or just the bay? San Francisco is a very bad choice in city to extrapolate from.

I supplied numbers for homelessness in general, and homelessness in SF.

Homelessness, in general and in SF, is overwhelming caused by economic issues.

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

#293

Post by zaccus » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #167

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why are wages so stagnant?

Because wages are a small part of the total compensation package - leaving out bonuses, health, dental, vision insurance policies, 401k (with matching), employee stock purchase plans, stock options or stock units awards, access to food and on-site services, company cars, etc. They’re also not stagnant https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

If my employer's group health insurance is considered part of my compensation, should I not be glad that health care costs are rising, since that drives up my total compensation?

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

#294

Post by SequoiaHope » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #286

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 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…

I agree with most of what you are saying, but not with the takeaway.

Yes, I absolutely expect these collectives to be less productive than the wealthy class. Does that matter? I’m thinking it doesn’t! The biggest reason is that currently the wealthy take 95+% of the wealth they create, so the fact that they’re more productive has little affect on the workers who live off the paltry wage they are paid. A collective that is less productive but shares more of its profits could pay their workers more than the capitalist companies are. These collectives needn’t compete with non-collectives as the participants of the collectives can opt to buy from a network of collectives whenever possible, providing them economic protection. Finally I think there is work to be done to commoditize robotics hardware and software such that capital costs are low, and this is a key goal of my planned life’s work. The collectives would of course work all in open source, and I think this would lower their costs across the board as there would be no intellectual property to artificially raise costs.

Finally I will say that I agree it sounds unlikely. But think of the outcome! The people would work for themselves and share in the wealth gained by productivity. Instead of wasting away working 60 hours a week until they die, there would be a chance for them to earn more wealth and take time off. It’s a choice of misery or freedom. Even if it’s unlikely, it’s not impossible. And I think it’s a goal worth pursuing.

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

#295

Post by zaccus » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 5:46 PM UTC

stickfigure wrote: post #200

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 as a result of this automation? They almost certainly will; that's just ECON101. I'm sure H&M and Zara aren't just sitting around admiring themselves in the mirror. Clothing is a weird market but there is definitely an elastic low-end and Uniqlo is playing in that space. There's no reason to believe the rules of basic economics are not functioning.

Prices are set to maximize revenue. Most companies aren't going to lower prices just because they can afford to; cost savings should (and usually do) go to shareholders.

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

#296

Post by sireat » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 5:51 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…

As a child I remember reading one of stories of Stanislaw Lem on where robots did all the work mass producing goods trying to find markets for them.

It ends with replacing humans with crystals. (so a combination of paperclip problem and automatization)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_Diaries (1958!)

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

#297

Post by int_19h » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 6:04 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #288

int_19h wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> for every person who leaves the middle class to become poor, more than one person leaves to become upper middle class.

I'm not sure this is true, and the only way I can see it possibly be is because "middle class" is a very fuzzy category that's defined relatively to others, so it can grow in absolute terms by e.g. lowering that relative standard. Income inequality has steadily grown, not shrunk. Concentration of capital at the top, and concentration of income from that capital, has also grown.

> not how to make the well off less valuable through arbitrary productivity restrictions.

You're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about restrictions on productivity. It is about redistribution of capital, and prevention of it getting concentrated too much in one hands at the point where labor is going to lose access to more and more of it to feed themselves via wages. I don't even thing that capping ownership of capital is the right way to do so. Taxing the hell out of it would be a better idea.

And education and training is not going to do anything to the fundamental problem of 100 people competing for 50 jobs.

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

#298

Post by Retric » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

krrrh wrote: post #262

Retric wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US employment rate has steadily fallen over time. Currently the overall rate for working age people is around 60%. Which means ~40% of the adult working age population does not have a job. Why the huge discrepancy with the official rate? Well some of it's stay at home parents and early retirees, but a large chunk of that is prison and disabled which have both quietly ballooned over time. These numbers look worse when…

Actually the numbers including women don't look too bad. With the recent recovery in employment it actually looks like labour participation has been relatively flat since the mid-eighties. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=lxWv One does have to wonder how the statistics are affected by millions of working adult residents participating in the economy as illegal aliens and therefore not counted. The reduction in mal…

I don't agree. The combined rate for 25-55 year shows every year from 1988 to 2008 was above the rate from 2008-2016.

Now, if the current trend continues for 5-10 years then we might recover. But, based on historical trends 2018 is likely a peak right before a recession vs the new normal.

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

#299

Post by Kalium » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 6:23 PM UTC

zaccus wrote: post #295

stickfigure wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will prices go down as a result of this automation? They almost certainly will; that's just ECON101. I'm sure H&M and Zara aren't just sitting around admiring themselves in the mirror. Clothing is a weird market but there is definitely an elastic low-end and Uniqlo is playing in that space. There's no reason to believe the rules of basic economics are not functioning.

Prices are set to maximize revenue. Most companies aren't going to lower prices just because they can afford to; cost savings should (and usually do) go to shareholders.

You're right! Costs savings, in isolation, will invariably go to highly privileged shareholders.

With that said, what do you think happens when a second company in the same sector starts to realize the same cost savings, and realizes they can move more units by using the cost savings to lower prices and ultimately return even more to shareholders?

Again, you're completely right. Companies don't lower prices out of the goodness of their cold, black, capitalist hearts. Yet, might there be other factors at work here?

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

#300

Post by lleims » Thu, Oct 11, 2018, 6:38 PM UTC

dvcrn wrote: post #156

I love uniqlo doubling down on tech. One thing I found really interesting is that inside the labels are small rfid (I think?) chips. At the cashier, the person just folds them nicely, puts the pile of cloth on a metal pad and the system tells you how many items and how much it is. No manual code scanning!! The first time I noticed that I felt like a kid again discovering something magical. The next step was to have p…

Decathlon in Spain has a very similar system. The first time I saw it I had the same reaction. Pretty exciting to experience it.