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

181–190 of 314 posts

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

#181

Post by nerdponx »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #161
ColanR wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also, clothing is a commodity. Whatever benefit Uniqlo shareholders get from this will be short-lived as clothing prices drop around the world, benefiting all clothes buyers (everyone) at the expense of a textile workers, who -- at least for the time being -- can easily find a job elsewhere. At some point, automation might be a cause for concern. But I really don't think this is that type of headline...

My argument is that this effect is small, diluted, and doesn't admit a strong positive feedback loop. Whereas the effect of sudden unemployment with no social safety net or training can trigger a strong negative feedback loop. You have the potential for strongly negative outcomes concentrated on a small number of people.

Now the question becomes, "is that a bad thing?" My answer is yes, because the forces that produce the negative feedback compound with each other. It becomes a "negative welfare contagion". It also is fundamentally unjust.

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

#182

Post by nerdponx »

stickfigure wrote: post #96
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…

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.

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.

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

#183

Post by antoinette_ »

endtime wrote: post #38
DrNuke wrote: post #35

You do not need to be a socialist to understand there is something inherently going badly wrong for the masses here.

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

A major part of socialism is an end to private ownership of capital-producing property like factories.

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

#184

Post by ezoe »

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…

Unfortunately, Uniqlo's job is so inhuman from top to bottom.　Possible exception for a few tops but it's just because they have large capital to buy share.

You can't imagine having a family when working on Uniqlo.

It should better be automated for the rest of the world.

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

#185

Post by nerdponx »

tdb7893 wrote: post #92
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…

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

It's not just about passing the savings onto consumers. Even if you deduct 10-15% for tax evasion, most of that money will end up recirculating into the economy.

The point I was clumsily trying to make is that it doesn't really matter. There are forces in the US economy that lead to strong feedback loops of negative welfare for individuals and the families of individuals who come on economic hard times. So while your shirt gets $2 cheaper, someone out there is getting addicted to Klonopin while their wife buys bread on food stamps, and their kid grows up to be a gangbanger, who kills another kid at the age of 15, because he had anger issues and they couldn't afford therapy.

I'm being deliberately hyperbolic, but I hope it helps illustrate the point. In the USA it's shockingly easy to end up in a vicious cycle of poverty that hurts everyone, not just the person with no money. Net welfare gain could well be negative from the situation described above.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by Thrymr »

adventured wrote: post #152
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.

There's no chance that's close to true. The further left you go, the more ardently people are anti guns in the US. With few exceptions it's a dramatic difference between the center left and far left on gun rights. The far left is entirely anti gun, the center left occasionally panders to win votes out of necessity. The two most famous Socialists in the US right now are probably Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez. Both…

> The two most famous Socialists in the US right now are probably Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez. Both are very aggressively anti guns.

That is not true of Bernie Sanders [0]. He has moved to some degree towards favoring more gun control laws than he used to, but he is by no means more anti-gun than most mainstream Democrats.

[0] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/24/41718...

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

#188

Post by nerdponx »

knieveltech wrote: post #98
ColanR wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

unemployment, or lack of spending power due to underemployment?

I think you misunderstood. You are describing negative societal value. Long-term unemployment can ruin not only your life but the lives of your family members.

Econ 201's solution is to punt on the issue and start doing calculus, because the economics orthodoxy was developed by heartless market neoliberals and computer scientists, and they can't really rationalize it in human terms. You literally have to go to grad school to un-learn all this shit.

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

#189

Post by nerdponx »

brycehamrick wrote: post #69
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 "job" as a foundation of modern life is the result of the industrialized revolution and, while it served its purposed, is something we need to abandon as quickly as possible. Corporations don't have a monopoly on economic value creation. We should be, as a government and society, encouraging independent tradesmen/women, entrepreneurship, and artisanry. If we can manage that, job loss due to automation is no longe…

We can't manage it until we remove employment as the sole condition for access to basic services like healthcare. We also need to ensure that people are able to retrain themselves if/when their job becomes obsolete.
Post reply on HN