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

Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 511 posts

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#201

Post by BurningFrog »

snarf21 wrote: post #179
sandworm101 wrote: post #35

I'm surprised that Amazon still uses boxes. They have the market power to insist manufacturers comply with amazon-specific packaging requirements. Why not just insist that all products be packaged in postal-compatible packaging? Then the amazon warehouse robot need only slap a label on the product and throw it in the shipping bin. Another answer would be to have products packaged in standard, or at lease square, boxe…

I think you are diminishing the importance of brands and brand loyalty for companies. A lot of effort is spent to have boxes designed for retail; size, shape, color, etc. matter a lot for this use case. Resistance to weather and being thrown around are not the main consideration of this use case. Standard size boxes that are shippable might be good for Amazon and the consumer but companies always want the brand front…

Surely a box could be both shippable and branded?

One problem is that showing what's inside helps thieves.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#202

Post by myself248 »

atonse wrote: post #113
irrational wrote: post #5

This sounds like good news. I've read lots of negative stories about the working conditions in Amazon warehouses. It would be great if all the jobs could be automated.

Honestly the best proposal I've seen for slowing down such automation is to add a tax on these machines. That'll make the cost-benefit equation less obvious. These machines won't pay for themselves in a year and then be practically free. They'll continue to cost a lot. This kind of tax would help slow the progress of such automation to a speed where society can better adjust. And I say this as someone who absolutely…

So how would you tax my cordless drill? It saves a ton of time versus the old bit-and-brace method. Or does the tax only apply to things that replace new jobs, not old ones?

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#203

Post by nepeckman »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #172
nepeckman wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And all those middle age workers will, what? Just be retrained? Who's paying for that? What happens when the retraining fails (as it so often does) because you can't magically turn a truck driver into a software engineer? I don't think any of the comments here are anti-progress. But we do need a social and political plan to handle the automation of a large number of low skill jobs. Failure to plan for this future wil…

> And all those middle age workers will, what? They will be fired, yes. This cruel world, where people should care about competitiveness of their skills. It starts right after the school.

Let's set empathy aside for a moment (which you seem to lack). This just isn't a practical approach. What do you think those people will do after being fired? Kindly die so you don't have to deal with them anymore? No, they will riot. And when that fails, they will turn to theft and crime in order to feed themselves and their family. We will pay one way or another for these economic hardships, in property damage, increased crime, increased prison costs, and overall worse standard of living throughout the developed world.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#204

Post by netcan »

CodeMage wrote: post #121
xxs wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"eliminated half of all programming jobs" Tools to improve speed of development have existed for ages, twice the speed = twice less developers in a blunt way. (that includes even programming languages) Personally I'd consider it an improvement - if I job can be automated, it should be.

> twice the speed = twice less developers in a blunt way Except that's not how that works. Increasing the productivity of a job does not eliminate it. A job is eliminated when it's no longer necessary. Unless you live in a parallel dimension, we're both in the world where there's more and more software development being done every day. Twice the speed results in twice the output, not half the developers.

There are two types of products in this world, lawyers and cigarettes.

If manufacturing cigarettes gets more/less expensive, people will pay more/less for their cigarettes. If it takes fewer people to make cigarettes, fewer people will have jobs making cigarettes. The number of cigarettes smoked stays constant.

If you have more lawyers, you'll have more lawsuits, contracts and legal letters. If it gets easier to do contracts or lawsuits lawyers will take longer lunches. Lawyer fees stay constant.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#205

Post by androidrebel »

bunderbunder wrote: post #148
asdfman123 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think HN's tune would be quite different if someone came up with a technology that eliminated half of all programming jobs. Not quite so many people would be saying, "This is great! I for one look forward to technological advancement." I do think the future should involve more automation, I just think we should be -- I dunno, a little less gleeful about it and think about the people it's impacting.

Another angle to what you're describing is that a huge percentage of programmers' jobs serve to eliminate other jobs. That's been the case for newer technologies since at least the beginning of the industrial revolution. That said, the long term effect hasn't been to reduce jobs. Ultimately, not paying someone to do X ends up also creating jobs by freeing up money to pay someone to do Y. Obviously that's small solace…

Why the downvotes? Progress and competition are good.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#206

Post by JaimeThompson »

sneak wrote: post #158
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Amazon stack up against other warehousing jobs in those areas?

In such a way that people choose to work for Amazon instead of those other employers, so Amazon’s jobs must be fairly attractive to them.

If the alternative is no job the math works out differently. I think that a considerable number of people on this site don't really know what it like to not have employers fighting over them. Sometimes you take what you can get to feed yourself and your kids.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#207

Post by androidrebel »

asdfman123 wrote: post #114
amedvednikov wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI. Then we can be gleeful about more automation.

People need to feel useful to others. Right now, in the US, we fulfill that need through work. Work is an integral part of our culture. If you make a whole swath of the population feel redundant, especially practical, no-nonsense people who are used to having work define who they are, they are not going to adjust well. They are quite different than college-educated hippies who would rather get more education and go s…

UBI encourages parasitic drag on the economy.

Re: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

#208

Post by netcan »

ekianjo wrote: post #186
CodeMage wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> twice the speed = twice less developers in a blunt way Except that's not how that works. Increasing the productivity of a job does not eliminate it. A job is eliminated when it's no longer necessary. Unless you live in a parallel dimension, we're both in the world where there's more and more software development being done every day. Twice the speed results in twice the output, not half the developers.

> Increasing the productivity of a job does not eliminate it. Of course it does. Not on an individual level, but if suddenly one employee can do three times more work, there is no need to recruit 2 more full time jobs to address the increasing needs. So on the whole, productivity will destroy jobs, but the good news is that the additional returns will create other jobs in other areas.

It depends on the demand "function." We only need so many socks. If sockmakers get more efficient, there'll be fewer sockmakers and prices will come down shrinking the industry.

In some cases, if productivity increases, and the price performance follows, we will consume far more of a thing, growing the market and employing more people.

Post reply on HN