Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:46 PM UTC

mlcrypto wrote: post #175

onion2k wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this where you try to claim trickle down economics works despite the top 20% of people owning more than 80% of the financial assets? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite...

The 20/80 rule applies in all aspects of life. Like 20% of the soccer players account for 80% of the goals. So why wouldn't we expect it to apply to money as well? This is like a law of gravity. You can attempt to fight against it artificially but eventually it will come crashing down

[deleted]

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

#322

Post by mrhlee » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #269

CriticalCathed wrote: post #216

This is going to be a shock to all of those people who were willing to give tax incentives for Amazon to build distribution warehouses in their city in exchange for "jobs." Though, this is only the beginning. A few thousand jobs now, the majority of them later.

How do you know overall jobs will decrease? It's also totally possible that each warehouse will be made twice as efficient per employee... but also deliver twice the merchandise... maintaining the same total number of jobs. Kind of the same way that automation of the past 100 years across the economy has still resulted in record-setting employment right now.

Although having a very low unemployment rate is better than a high unemployment rate, it doesn't help paint the whole picture of the American workforce. The other metric that ought to be mentioned along with unemployment is the labor participation rate, which has been trending worse for a while now [1]. Considering the two together, the economy isn't as rosy as it looks. [2]

For example, if I were to be chronically unemployed and quit looking for jobs altogether, I would actually help the unemployment rate look better since I'm no longer part of that metric.

Part of the problem can be attributed to automation in jobs and job duties, thus requiring a smaller labor force. For those who were laid off by automation in manufacturing or other sectors, many would likely have a hard time finding a job in their established career. Expecting most of such workers to get a job an an on demand skill like maintaining machinery or software development is a herculean task. Most likely they are the ones who fall prey to the poor labor participation metric.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/061515/what-key-dif... [2] http://www.startribune.com/even-with-unemployment-at-50-year...

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

#323

Post by vivekrkumar » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:47 PM UTC

Contrarian (and biased) point of view based on our current success serving Fortune 500 customers - automation in warehouses is not a near-term solution, and acquiring and retaining talent is still a huge pain.

Reuters only 12 days ago published, "Amazon dismisses idea automation will eliminate all its warehouse jobs soon." [1]

Automation will continue to increase, but we're still seeing numerous job openings in warehousing. [2]

For now, it looks like robots in warehouses are displacing work, not replacing jobs. We do believe that automation and robots will eventually lead to the creation of more stable jobs with less turnover.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-warehouse/amaz...

[2] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm

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

#324

Post by UnFleshedOne » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:49 PM UTC

logicprog wrote: post #144

asdfman123 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I one hundred percent agree with you on what the results would be-- without there being repercussions for not persevering with anything, and with all bad choices safely having the corners rounded off by UBI, most people won't do anything much. And as much as they feel like they don't want to do work now , this lack of any motivation from outside themselves will have a deleterious effect on people. I mean, picture wha…

The problem with not using free time wisely is that there is usually supply and fragmentation issues -- not enough free time (or at least feels like it) and chunks that feel small enough that you have trouble fitting anything significant in before you have to drop everything and go make another buck. So the time is spent on useless things that are easy to pick up.

For example, unless currently possessed by a Strange Mood (in Dwarf Fortress artifact making sense), it takes me 4 free days to even start (or resume) something productive more complex than general housework stuff. That excludes most of weekends out, since they are too short.

People who would have trouble finding valuable (to them) things to do under UBI regime, have even more trouble now, unless they lucked out and consider the job they must do now to be more valuable than the money it brings. And not a soul sucking waste of time that doesn't leave enough time and energy to even realize something fulfilling can be done.

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

#325

Post by _fq4v » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:50 PM UTC

wyre wrote: post #226

_fq4v wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States, is, in a sense, a communist country, given that most people own a good portion of major companies. However, like every other communist society literally ever, your diminutive share of ownership means little and there's still one guy in charge, except our guys differ by industry and vertical.

>most people own a good portion of major companies. Are you revering to the stock market? I don‘t believe this is true. Just because half of adults own stock doesnt mean they own a good portion of these companies. Remember the richest 1% own 35% of the wealth.

> Are you revering to the stock market?

What else would I be referring to?

> Just because half of adults own stock doesnt mean they own a good portion of these companies

Most people invest in mutual funds, which do own a significant portion of the largest corporations. This is fine; most communist systems in practice allow for private ownership of smaller businesses.

> Remember the richest 1% own 35% of the wealth.

This is true, but communism refers to the communal ownership of the means of production. In practice, communist societies typically end up with some small group of people having an outsized influence on the means of production. Although nominally, they own an equal share of them, this is in name only. By all metrics of control, they own a larger share. My guess is that the US (and free market systems in general with widespread ownership) is probably more egalitarian in that regard.

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

#326

Post by lostphilosopher » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #320

o_p wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>machines bring lower prices Do you have any source about this? If the costumer is already willing to pay a price there would be no point in lowering the price just because you automated the process. Or better said, theres no point in investing in machines if your profit margin is not going to get wider.

Sure there is. If they don't do it, someone else will be able to outcompete on price, eventually at least. And yes, most of our history is full of examples of newer technologies lowering cost, that's kind of the whole reason that or civilization is more advanced (materially) than it was in the past.

There's also the "number of purchases * purchase price" equation which means you can make more money by reducing price if it means (enough) more people by the product, or buy more of them.

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

#327

Post by nerdponx » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:53 PM UTC

o_p wrote: post #312

elamje wrote: post #301

Articles about Amazon are quick to mention the workplace conditions or robots automating something. Rarely do they mention that machines equal lower prices for the consumers 9 times out of 10. You can think what you want about Amazon but I’m not complaining that I have 100’s of options for my phone case, all for 1/5 the price of the previous days buying them at Verizon or Apple. Edit: would be awesome to hear about A…

>machines bring lower prices Do you have any source about this? If the costumer is already willing to pay a price there would be no point in lowering the price just because you automated the process. Or better said, theres no point in investing in machines if your profit margin is not going to get wider.

It's worth expanding on this. Because I think it gets lost in the rhetoric, whether deliberately or by accident.

A profit-maximizing firm sets prices that maximize its expected profit. This seems tautological, but it's important and I think it's implications aren't appreciated.

If your prices are already beating the competition, and you already have a solid reputation for low prices, there is no incentive to continue lowering prices, even as you cut costs. This is why monopolies are considered "bad", because they eliminate incentives for firms to care at all about the welfare of consumers.

In undergrad economics classes, you might learn that prices are set equal to marginal cost (including opportunity cost). But that is only true under specific and relatively strong equilibrium conditions, which I don't believe apply to Amazon.

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

#328

Post by nerdponx » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #320

o_p wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>machines bring lower prices Do you have any source about this? If the costumer is already willing to pay a price there would be no point in lowering the price just because you automated the process. Or better said, theres no point in investing in machines if your profit margin is not going to get wider.

Sure there is. If they don't do it, someone else will be able to outcompete on price, eventually at least. And yes, most of our history is full of examples of newer technologies lowering cost, that's kind of the whole reason that or civilization is more advanced (materially) than it was in the past.

Right now they have no need to lower prices. They can hold their lower production costs as a threat to any competitor who might be tempted to enter a price war, without ever needing to actually lower their prices.

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

#329

Post by slphil » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

tomc1985 wrote: post #306

abakker wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Robots may be cheaper, but they may also be more accurate. In my 20 years shopping with Amazon, I have very occasionally received the wrong items, so maybe robots will combat that, or reduce the need to double check, etc. I agree, low-skill jobs are shrinking, but we should not expect companies to solve that. We have a government and we vote. Ideally, we should all be asking the government to propose solutions…

With the current political gridlock voting is not enough. Workplaces -- the very entities that provide the jobs we need to earn a living -- need to shoulder more of the burden they inflict from the zero-sum game that they're paying. They hold a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth and they need to take responsibility for it.

The economy is not a zero-sum game, nor are corporate profits. Increases in productive efficiency create objectively more wealth overall, and those benefits diffuse out to every socioeconomic class (the classic conservative snark that even poor people have cars, refrigerators, and air conditioning, living better than medieval kings in many ways, is not inaccurate). We are living in an era where megacorporations and their related efficiency gains will rapidly increase the "standard of living" for a population which is (nonetheless!) going to get more miserable over time.

Stepping past the "zero-sum" claim, though, I agree that corporations should take responsibility for their incredibly powerful role in modern society, but I don't see a mechanism by which this could happen. The entire point of a regulated liberal democracy is to create a legislative landscape which modifies the incentive structures of businesses to "coerce" them into providing more social benefit than cost.

There is also nothing wrong with some level of redistributism, as long as it doesn't blindly ignore economic reality (a la communism). Many of the right-leaning nerds here on HN are in favor of universal basic income for that reason.

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

#330

Post by abakker » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

tomc1985 wrote: post #306

abakker wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Robots may be cheaper, but they may also be more accurate. In my 20 years shopping with Amazon, I have very occasionally received the wrong items, so maybe robots will combat that, or reduce the need to double check, etc. I agree, low-skill jobs are shrinking, but we should not expect companies to solve that. We have a government and we vote. Ideally, we should all be asking the government to propose solutions…

With the current political gridlock voting is not enough. Workplaces -- the very entities that provide the jobs we need to earn a living -- need to shoulder more of the burden they inflict from the zero-sum game that they're paying. They hold a disproportionate amount of the world's wealth and they need to take responsibility for it.

I understand that completely. The way to hold companies accountable is to increase taxes on them, or increase regulations.

Companies solve to a given tax burden and regulatory regime. Their solutions can be influenced by changing the rules or the rewards.

Personally, I find it likely that no amount of regulation will solve the problem of creating employment opportunity for low skill workers. I think that we either need to create those jobs through the government (e.g. WPA, CCC, etc), or raise taxes to improve the amount of dollars spent supporting underemployed people, or investing in the skills.