Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

buff_samurai t1_j5th3vx wrote

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

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