Why are Stuff on Production lines still produced by humans these days?

Samuel T. Cogley

Wheety

The BBC series on food factories was great.

In some, there were only around 5 workers in a massive warehouse. A machine scanned a barcode and went off and picked up a full pallet and placed it on a truck. There were loads of these machines moving quickly around the factory picking orders and putting them directly on trucks for delivery. They never crash into each other because of sensors all over them. Was quite impressive. They can work 24/7 too.

Another factory had driverless trucks going from a storage warehouse to the production factory. It didn't have to go on public roads as it was part of the same complex but still shows what they can already currently do. This technology is improving all the time too.

Wheeliebin30

No need to panic.

I'm sure 100 years ago noone predicted anything we have nowadays.

Point is noone knows what's gonna happen in 100 years.

Andy From Sligo

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

No need to panic.

I'm sure 100 years ago noone predicted anything we have nowadays.

Point is noone knows what's gonna happen in 100 years.

100 years a bit far off nowadays though .. and way the world is going there might not be anything around in 100 years time

If the machinery is available (or can be made) to do these jobs, then maybe its time to switch and let machines do most the work and just keep humans to make the machines in the first place, oversee the machines (make sure they dont malfunction or repair them if they break down) and check quality control - but gone should be the days now of humans repetitively producing something on a production line day in , day out or packing things monotonously surely eh?

When you hear as well of so many people that are so fed up of working on a production line and doing the same thing, every day for years with no move up the ladder , same thing every day and no variation and they are so bored and only there 'because the pay is so good' - surely must have a knock on effect in their lives and health and family life even if they dont realise it no?

Widdershins

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

100 years a bit far off nowadays though .. and way the world is going there might not be anything around in 100 years time

If the machinery is available (or can be made) to do these jobs, then maybe its time to switch and let machines do most the work and just keep humans to make the machines in the first place, oversee the machines (make sure they dont malfunction or repair them if they break down) and check quality control - but gone should be the days now of humans repetitively producing something on a production line day in , day out or packing things monotonously surely eh?

When you hear as well of so many people that are so fed up of working on a production line and doing the same thing, every day for years with no move up the ladder , same thing every day and no variation and they are so bored and only there 'because the pay is so good' - surely must have a knock on effect in their lives and health and family life even if they dont realise it no?

I know someone who works in all weathers doing heavy, dirty, dangerous and awkward physical work that's also mentally taxing, with no real recourse when the employer treats him badly. He's at the point where he talks dreamily of a factory job. I asked him if he wouldn't get mind numbingly bored with the repetitive nature of the work and he said he'd be fine with that as he'd spend his evenings or weekends doing the interesting stuff.

I mean his current job is also very unusual, creative and exciting, on a good day.

Jurgen Klopp

L1m1tless wrote: »

If nobody has a job, who will buy the stuff the AI is producing?

Not to mention, given estimates of 50% of jobs to be lost how will any sort of dole or universal income which is touted as the solution be provided from the remaining workers taxes, while at the same time cover all the infrastructure and services tax does, along with said workers having enough left over for themselves.

A massive tax on all companies might be a way regardless of whether it's a program or robot.

I'd call it a "tough ****" tax.

darkpagandeath

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

Not to mention, given estimates of 50% of jobs to be lost how will any sort of dole or universal income which is touted as the solution be provided from the remaining workers taxes, while at the same time cover all the infrastructure and services tax does, along with said workers having enough left over for themselves.

A massive tax on all companies might be a way regardless of whether it's a program or robot.

I'd call it a "tough ****[\i]" tax.

Only other solution would be to move from a monetized economy.

Jurgen Klopp

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Only other solution would be to move from a monetized economy.

You know I'd say the powers that be would have AI severely restricted rather than do that

eeguy

Libertarian Kant wrote: »

Birth rates in Europe are declining. Perhaps we'll stop immigration, populations will decrease ad we'll all be Doctors, Lawyers and Pilots living in a utopia of manual labour being done by robots.

So say we all?

Probably the three worst examples to use.

If your job is predictable, like if it has a certain routine or follows a set procedure, then a computer will do it, probably sooner than you think.
There is a theory that the baby boomer pension gap will be filled by increased robot productivity. I'll believe it when I see it though.

darkpagandeath

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

You know I'd say the powers that be would have AI severely restricted rather than do that

It's a catch 22 AI would be such a profit generator due to no wages.

JupiterKid

Are products built to last any more? I have a washing machine that is less than 5 years old and is already starting to malfunction.:(

I know white goods and TV etc are much cheaper than 30 years ago, but has quality been sacrificed?

eeguy

JupiterKid wrote: »

Are products built to last any more? I have a washing machine that is less than 5 years old and is already starting to malfunction.:(

I know white goods and TV etc are much cheaper than 30 years ago, but has quality been sacrificed?

Yes. You get what you pay for.

darkpagandeath

eeguy wrote: »

Yes. You get what you pay for.

Not really you have to think there is some critical failure built in to keep the infinite growth going. If you had a washing machine now lasting 20 years it would kill off companies.

Widdershins

JupiterKid wrote: »

Are products built to last any more? I have a washing machine that is less than 5 years old and is already starting to malfunction.:(

I know white goods and TV etc are much cheaper than 30 years ago, but has quality been sacrificed?

I have read that they aren't and it's called ''planned obsolescence''. I don't know if that's a fact or just a theory. It seems to happen that way, for whatever reason. When you look at old machinery and appliances, they seem much sturdier, without flimsy plastic components.

darkpagandeath

Widdershins wrote: »

I have read that they aren't and it's called ''planned obsolescence''. I don't know if that's a fact or just a theory. It seems to happen that way, for whatever reason. When you look at old machinery and appliances, they seem much sturdier, without flimsy plastic components.

Aye, That's the Key the Components that are as you say flimsy. I remember back in the day people used to chuck CRT monitors out when they would not turn on. 90% of the time it's the internal 5amp fuse. Easily replaced Quite a money maker if you were into skip diving. Remember having draw full of early Walkmans ? Could be a simple as the drive belt or plastic cogs gone.

topmanamillion

listermint wrote: »

Don't worry people will be made obsolete fairly soon next 2 decades.

You'll get the dream.

Then we will have other wars to worry about in the west east south and north. Poverty drives war too. Eliminating employment fast tracks that.

Sound goal to have I suppose.....

If the Agricultural and industrial revolutions have proven anything its that when jobs are made obsolete people are good at finding other things to do.

darkpagandeath

topmanamillion wrote: »

If the Agricultural and industrial revolutions have proven anything its that when jobs are made obsolete people are good at finding other things to do.

What is coming is not one sector though, As I said imagine just for a second the amount of call centres around. Most reasonable ones have about 400 people. Now replace them With an AI. Just think of the sectors affected.

Slydice

Just give em a bit more time.

They're working on it..

md23040

Phoebas wrote: »

We have Excel ... and a photocopier. How much automation tax should we pay?

This is a very pedantic point. It is only a matter of time before government will have to adopt some sort of taxation based on automation with people being put out of work as a result of Ai and Automation. Dole will have to be paid as well as loss of income tax, prsi etc. The less human intervention in a business with large scale redundancy needs to the recognised for taxation. Last month Fukoku Mutual Life Insurance in Japan laid all its staff and replaced with Ai - see Here

The great wash within clerical is just beginning as well as delivery drivers, taxi's, factories, docks, airports, train stations etc (800 laid off in London underground last year). Even in supermarkets and airports you do everything yourself. I am sick to death of company's making more and more profit at the behest of everything else and maybe that's why we are in the political maelstrom presently with Trump and Brexit (more to come with EU elections) - and maybe its a good thing with a groundswell of anti establishment, rejection of liberal metropolitan centralist/left politics.

The above comment is glib but noontheless over the years my pay has been shovelled with extra taxes and companies like Apple, Google, Starbucks, Amazon are getting away with blue murder and making exponential increases in profits while idiots like our government defending their taxation position.

In the next ten years loads of staff in government like revenue commissioners as well as private sector clerical is going to be finished - the last recession was the first to hit the middle classes as well the working classes, but with the advent of Ai/automation we ain't seen nothing like the economic damage it has the potential to cause (if left unchecked) - especially to the metropolitan Miss Pencil Skirt (McWilliams phrase) and Mr Hipster generation etc.



..

Phoebas

md23040 wrote: »

This is a very pedantic point.

It is, but it still needs to be dealt with.

An automation tax is a bad idea that couldn't possibly work. A better way of dealing with this is a profits tax (which we already have) coupled with a tax credit for every human employed. That way you could protect marginal human jobs without the crazy bureaucracy of an automation tax.

eeguy

To answer the OPs question, not enough money and time.

It take a lot of both to restructure your business and automate processes.
What's more common is a new business designed for robots displacing established businesses.

There was a biscuit factory opened in Drogheda last year that's able to undercut established UK bakeries, since their staff levels are tiny. 100 staff in a plant the size of a football pitch.

So if you hear of a bakers in Manchester laying off a few hundred staff, that could be the reason.

The Rape of Lucretia

Phoebas wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Machines break down, or don't work as expected.

People, on the other hand ....

Machines get sick a lot more than humans. Well functioning lines do well to be sick only 10% of the time. 20%-30% is not uncommon. Humans about 2%-3% (civil service excepted of course).

Andy From Sligo

some people just cannot handle change with future technology. Look at when computers came in everybody was saying the computers will be death of office workers and accountants, that doesnt seem the case. When self service tills came into force people predicted the end to humans on tills serving people, but we still have checkout people alongside the self service machines. - But I strongly believe if you run a business and you need profits and no disadvantages of ill people or people going off for a fag break or risk of them going on strike or under performance due to tiredness and a machine can do the same amount of work, if not more, than a human being then why not embrace it.

Yes outlay expensive and you still got to have people to service the machines (in the future though I believe robots/machines will repair the machines) but over amount of time I think they would more than pay back in profits and taking no wages. I would also question about the amount of percent the machines would break down and be out of action (especially these days) compared with human beings, I personally think a machine would be much more reliable and profitable.

ToddyDoody

Any traces of urine in foodstuffs would be manually added.

eeguy

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Machines get sick a lot more than humans. Well functioning lines do well to be sick only 10% of the time. 20%-30% is not uncommon. Humans about 2%-3% (civil service excepted of course).

Really? So all around the world, the best manufacturing lines are down for one day every fortnight? and it's not uncommon for a line to be out for a half a week every fortnight?
Got any evidence for this claim?

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

Yes outlay expensive and you still got to have people to service the machines (in the future though I believe robots/machines will repair the machines) but over amount of time I think they would more than pay back in profits and taking no wages. I would also question about the amount of percent the machines would break down and be out of action (especially these days) compared with human beings, I personally think a machine would be much more reliable and profitable.

There's a lot of research effort in the last 5 years around putting sensors in machines to automatically schedule preventative maintenance based on minute vibrations, temperatures, current draw etc.
Basically creating a system that knows when and where it's going to break down, so you can replace the parts before it happens. I read a paper on creating a machine that orders it's own replacement parts, so you'll get a box in the post with the parts that you didn't even know needed to be replaced.

ToddyDoody wrote: »

Any traces of urine in foodstuffs would be manually added.

Synthetic urine

Elemonator

Wages are cheaper in poorer parts of the world than development and purchasing of robots. Don't fix it if its not broke.

eeguy

Elemonator wrote: »

Wages are cheaper in poorer parts of the world than development and purchasing of robots. Don't fix it if its not broke.

Actually not true any more. You can buy a decent multipurpose industrial robot arm for 10k, or a 2 arm Baxter robot for 20k. They'll pay themselves back in less that a year. It's cheaper to buy robots than employ Chinese workers in some cases now.

A Chinese company just bought Kuka, the German robotics company who supply robots to car manufacturers.

Widdershins

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Aye, That's the Key the Components that are as you say flimsy. I remember back in the day people used to chuck CRT monitors out when they would not turn on. 90% of the time it's the internal 5amp fuse. Easily replaced Quite a money maker if you were into skip diving. Remember having draw full of early Walkmans ? Could be a simple as the drive belt or plastic cogs gone.

I don't remember Walkmans but I prefer to buy old stuff if I can. My boyfriend is good at keeping them going!

Now, it's probably cheaper to buy a replacement of something than to get it repaired, with call out charges and so on.

Andy From Sligo

Elemonator wrote: »

Wages are cheaper in poorer parts of the world than development and purchasing of robots. Don't fix it if its not broke.

it is broke and has been broke for years - why should we carry on to continue and support human exploitation just because we want our consumer goods such as electronics, clothing and food ?

I have no moral concerns or feelings or issues for exploiting robots!

Widdershins

Andy From Sligo wrote: »

it is broke and has been broke for years - why should we carry on to continue and support human exploitation just because we want our consumer goods such as electronics, clothing and food ?

I have no moral concerns or feelings or issues for exploiting robots!

What about humans in jobs they like being made obsolete though.Taxi drivers and Staffless libraries and so on. Maybe they won't catch on as people were taking the p with no staff to supervise them