Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Deyln t1_j5sqcq8 wrote

Reply to comment by Cat_stacker in Amazon strikes: Workers claim robots are treated better by secure_caramel

China is replacing Chinese workforce with robots.

Saying they're expensive and seeing the cheap labor pool being replaced by them is at odds.

28

Trelefor t1_j5t019r wrote

They need replaced much less frequently, don't complain, and their upkeep is stable.

43

haertelgu t1_j5tmsyw wrote

Also don't get children. And can work 24/7

25

Fractoos t1_j5tn631 wrote

Far more loyal and don't want to leave to sleep or eat. Willing to work long hours.

14

emeraldoasis t1_j5uvqpu wrote

That is until the inevitable robot uprising

1

8andahalfby11 t1_j5vcuw6 wrote

Doubtful. Robots will kill us because of a human programming error long before then. It'll probably something stupid, like properly terminating a while loop.

1

bluemitersaw t1_j5to8n6 wrote

Not when you look at the full picture. Robots cost a lot up front (unlike humans) but can work 24/7 (unlike humans). They don't complain, go on strike, ask to use the bathroom, demand pay raises... They don't demand pay at all!

Humans are cheap to replace but have long term costs that never end. Robots are the complete opposite.

17

bloodylip t1_j5uay6u wrote

> Humans are cheap to replace but have long term costs that never end. Robots are the complete opposite.

I mean, robots have long term costs that never end, too. Gotta do maintenance on them, otherwise you end up replacing the robot for a lot more than the maintenance costs in the long run.

−2

buff_samurai t1_j5th3vx wrote

Nah, I work in the industry and it works like this:

The cost of a robot station is usually compared to the total cost of a labor in 2-3years during a single shift.

After that time the robot is like a ‘free’ worker (minus the maintenance and energy).

12

blue_twidget t1_j5uj3h3 wrote

Even then, might be considered "free" as power and parts storage is considered a sunk cost.

2

buff_samurai t1_j5utx5d wrote

Well, yes and no ;)

If we go deeper there is more then just the cost of labor.

Industrial robots are mostly used for a high volume production of a single element of a product. The main advantage over human worker is accuracy and consistency not just the cost. For some industries the tolerance for an error is like 5 per 1.000.000 meaning the manufacturer’s customer may return the whole batch of a product if he finds more problems. The penalty for this scenario is very high, so it makes sense to use a robot that does not make mistakes like we humans would do even if it costs more.

Next, robots are also much faster, allowing for a higher output in a given time. There is also the rhythm that allows for a precise timing of logistics to feed the machines.

There is more, usually application specific.

In general robots are ‘cheaper’ at scale. For small batches or flexible procedures humans are better choice.

2

Deyln t1_j5xo6fz wrote

Which more then covers the cost in terms of length of time that it takes to train an employee. The time is essentially at parity.

1

Thunderhorse74 t1_j5u9oka wrote

Early adoption. The price will come down as technology improves and the way to drive that innovation is using it.

Also, they don't need to be tracked and assessed a Social Credit score. I mean, yet, wait till AI "improves"

3

0pimo t1_j5tyw9t wrote

Chinese labor costs have skyrocketed.

1

DanielWhatUPs t1_j5uux57 wrote

OK man, just because something is more expensive initially, does not mean that it isn't more efficient and cost effective in the long term

1