Asus starts industry's first fully-automated graphics card production

[techswede]

It's an EXTREME world we live in these days.

It just feels so patronizing.. I mean my razor is a gilette fusion for fucks sake. Good marketing there. Cut yourself and die from radiation poisoning..

[Real_PhillBert]

It just feels so patronizing.. I mean my razor is a gilette fusion for fucks sake. Good marketing there. Cut yourself and die from radiation poisoning..

 

I agree, some of the marketing terminology is getting a bit out of hand.

[Trik'Stari]

For everyone complaining about unemployment, check that out: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/05/18/404991483/how-machines-destroy-and-create-jobs-in-4-graphs

You actually trust NPR?

 

Yeah, machines destroy and create jobs. Unfortunately they destroy more jobs than they create.

[techswede]

I agree, some of the marketing terminology is getting a bit out of hand.

The worst one for me is "Turbo". (I blame saab for this one) Everything is turbo nowadays. And i'm a car enthusiast so seeing turbo on something without any forced induction taking place just makes my eye twitch.. Pisses me off

[Real_PhillBert]

You actually trust NPR?

 

Yeah, machines destroy and create jobs. Unfortunately they destroy more jobs than they create.

 

Jobs arent the only thing that machines destroy...

 

[Bouzoo]

The worst one for me is "Turbo". (I blame saab for this one) Everything is turbo nowadays. And i'm a car enthusiast so seeing turbo on something without any forced induction taking place just makes my eye twitch.. Pisses me off

 

Like for Gintoki.

[Trik'Stari]

The worst one for me is "Turbo". (I blame saab for this one) Everything is turbo nowadays. And i'm a car enthusiast so seeing turbo on something without any forced induction taking place just makes my eye twitch.. Pisses me off

-snip

^Oh god this, a thousand million billion times this^

[TroubleKlef]

You actually trust NPR?

 

Yeah, machines destroy and create jobs. Unfortunately they destroy more jobs than they create.

 

Rather machines destroy 3 low level jobs and create 1 high level job. Of course, these numbers are arbitrary but you get the point.

[Trik'Stari]

Rather machines destroy 3 low level jobs and create 1 high level job. Of course, these numbers are arbitrary but you get the point.

Yes but what happens to the people who lose those low level jobs, and how will they afford the services that make your high level job possible?

 

 

~

 

 

You don't need to trust them, you can check the data from Minesotta university by yourself. Automation destroy bad jobs and create fewer, but better ones directly linked to that old job, while reducing costs. That cost reduction, easier access to tools and technology favors service sector, that create more jobs and can offer customized services to their clients at a lower price. 

 

Another two articles about that topic: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304070104576399704275939640​http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-2799537

That would be true, if companies actually passed their savings in overhead on to the customer, rather than their own profit margins. Companies don't cut down overhead and then lower prices, if anything they will raise them or at the least, keep them the same.

[Bouzoo]

~

You don't need to trust them, you can check the data from Minesotta university by yourself. Automation destroy bad jobs and create fewer, but better ones directly linked to that old job, while reducing costs. That cost reduction, easier access to tools and technology favors service sector, that create more jobs and can offer customized services to their clients at a lower price. Those things you can check on charts at NPR website.

Another two articles about that topic:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405270230407010457639970427593964

~http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-2799537

So you want to say it's on a 1:1 scale? Don't think so. If 5 people get fired that worked on the same production line and 1 person gets a job to monitor the robot that replaced them that wouldn't be 1 to 1. The point of replacing excluding the quality is because long term 1 robot costs less than a production line with X number of people. And this was an example, and yes I know, then they need a person to repair them and it's not like 1 line is gonna have 1 person repairing it etc.

[TroubleKlef]

Yes but what happens to the people who lose those low level jobs, and how will they afford the services that make your high level job possible?

 

As I said these numbers are arbitrary. For example, the 1 person who built graphics cards can now be easily trained to maintain the robot. With more training to service the robot. With more training to build the robots. With more training to design to robot. More training to code the robots.  Of course there will be that 1 guy who has no skills and isn't willing to learn them and he will complain that he is entitled to free things.

[Trik'Stari]

I didn't said that it was on a 1:1 scale. If you fire 5 people and replace it with machines, you'll need some maintenance. You can outsource the maintainance of those machines to another company, that will need to hire technicians, keep HR department, and a lot more people to keep everything working. 

It's still a net loss of employee's, leading to a larger amount of unemployment.

 

As I said these numbers are arbitrary. For example, the 1 person who built graphics cards can now be easily trained to maintain the robot. With more training to service the robot. With more training to build the robots. With more training to design to robot. Of course there will be that 1 guy who has no skills and isn't willing to learn them and he will complain that he is entitled to free things.

Yes but you don't replace 10 people with machines, then hire 10 people to maintain them. You hire 1 person to fix them when they break down.

[79 Potatoes]

So many Chinese workers out of work.

PRC or ROC? There's a difference on the impact...

[TroubleKlef]

Yes but you don't replace 10 people with machines, then hire 10 people to maintain them. You hire 1 person to fix them when they break down.

 

You are assuming all 10 people will convert to maintaining robots. I listed above the numerous paths a person could take. I'm not saying no jobs will be lost but higher more advanced jobs will be created and somebody has to fill those roles.

[Trik'Stari]

You are assuming all 10 people will convert to maintaining robots. I listed above the numerous paths a person could take. I'm not saying no jobs will be lost but higher more advanced jobs will be created and somebody has to fill those roles.

You still missed the point. Whether or not all 10 of them do or do not convert to maintaining robots, there is a certainty that one of them will not be able to find a job, which is a net loss.

 

If that was true, the unemployment rate would be much higher all over the world, and it is not, even after replacing tons and tons of jobs in many different segments.

Not long ago, Microsoft fired a lot of people, some of them were hired by Google, Yahoo, Intel, and so on. Some of them started their own business, hired more people, are making money, etc.

 

Another good article about that topic: http://www.technologyreview.com/review/426436/tectonic-shifts-in-employment/

That's a completely different industry and situation. For proof of automation destroying, look at the majority of the automotive industry or other fabrication jobs. While a majority of those persons did eventually find other means of employment, not all of them did, and considering that robotics will at some point in the near future start to replace mundane service jobs of all kinds, and even theoretically, programming jobs, there will be fewer and fewer sources of income to go around.

 

Assuming:

A. we don't create new industries, always possible.

B. we don't abandon the concept of currency, as we should. (consider a future where no one actually NEEDS to work in order to survive, because everything can be provided via robots or machines).

[Ryoutarou97]

Wait, this wasn't already a thing? I just figured that since you can pump out way more GPU's for cheaper everyone would be doing this. I mean, you have a PCB of a known size in a known orientation. A robot arm picks up capacitors and whatnot and just moves them over to an absolute position and plonks them down (maybe applying a bit of heat in the process). I trust that for some reason this hasn't been done before, but WHY!? Isn't this kind of an obvious cost-cutting step?

[flibberdipper]

Neato, in a way.

[spartaman64]

this has become the natural selection for humans to keep our population in check. Normally a population can only grow as large as there is enough food to feed them. So there can only be as many lions as there are zebra to feed them. For humanity thats not really a factor, so our natural selection has become the jobs available in order to make money to buy the food. Its sad to see people starve to death yes, but its not something that you can change really.

By limiting jobs they are limiting the growth of humanity which in the long run is a very good thing unless you would like your descendants to live in a world like what is depicted in Elysium. I'm sure that will happen eventually anyway, but overpopulation of earth is not a good thing, neither is encouraging that growth.

you should watch this 

[wpirobotbuilder]

Yes but what happens to the people who lose those low level jobs, and how will they afford the services that make your high level job possible?

To people who are trained in robotics and whom study the economic and social impact of automation, this has been an open question for a long time.

 

The bottom line is that there are no easy answers. If you think you know exactly what we should do, you're kidding yourself.

 

We know that businesses have a very strong central focus -- make money and grow the company. Sometimes this is for the benefit of their workers, sometimes it isn't. They will pursue avenues that increase their profits, whether through increased volume or increased profit margins, and adopting automation generally allows them to do this. There is a huge incentive for many businesses to adopt automation.

 

It is likely that an overall net loss of jobs will occur as a result of automation. This is a big deal, especially to the companies adopting automation, because a large number of people whom are unable to purchase their goods will result in them losing revenue.

 

Whether or not the automation is morally right or not is irrelevant. It is already happening, mostly out of sight. The question is, what will be the long term effect of it?

 

Massive numbers of people, dependent on unemployment assistance because there are no few jobs left for which they are employable, through no fault of their own?

Families choosing to have fewer children as a result of the lack of jobs, resulting in population decline?

Other scenario?

[patrickjp93]

To people who are trained in robotics and whom study the economic and social impact of automation, this has been an open question for a long time.

The bottom line is that there are no easy answers. If you think you know exactly what we should do, you're kidding yourself.

We know that businesses have a very strong central focus -- make money and grow the company. Sometimes this is for the benefit of their workers, sometimes it isn't. They will pursue avenues that increase their profits, whether through increased volume or increased profit margins, and adopting automation generally allows them to do this. There is a huge incentive for many businesses to adopt automation.

It is likely that an overall net loss of jobs will occur as a result of automation. This is a big deal, especially to the companies adopting automation, because a large number of people whom are unable to purchase their goods will result in them losing revenue.

Whether or not the automation is morally right or not is irrelevant. It is already happening, mostly out of sight. The question is, what will be the long term effect of it?

Massive numbers of people, dependent on unemployment assistance because there are no few jobs left for which they are employable, through no fault of their own?

Families choosing to have fewer children as a result of the lack of jobs, resulting in population decline?

Other scenario?

If you work in a menial labor scenario and end up jobless through automation, that is your fault. You should always be looking for new skills and value to bring to your company or to another of conditions become intolerable. Not doing this is a failure to invest in oneself.

[imthewalrus]

If you work in a menial labor scenario and end up jobless through automation, that is your fault. You should always be looking for new skills and value to bring to your company or to another of conditions become intolerable. Not doing this is a failure to invest in oneself.

 

No matter how valuable your skills are, to a company you will never ever be too big to sack. I agree that you should always be looking for new skills and value, but people should always have a plan B in case their company decides to lay them off. 

[Trik'Stari]

To people who are trained in robotics and whom study the economic and social impact of automation, this has been an open question for a long time.

 

The bottom line is that there are no easy answers. If you think you know exactly what we should do, you're kidding yourself.

 

We know that businesses have a very strong central focus -- make money and grow the company. Sometimes this is for the benefit of their workers, sometimes it isn't. They will pursue avenues that increase their profits, whether through increased volume or increased profit margins, and adopting automation generally allows them to do this. There is a huge incentive for many businesses to adopt automation.

 

It is likely that an overall net loss of jobs will occur as a result of automation. This is a big deal, especially to the companies adopting automation, because a large number of people whom are unable to purchase their goods will result in them losing revenue.

 

Whether or not the automation is morally right or not is irrelevant. It is already happening, mostly out of sight. The question is, what will be the long term effect of it?

 

Massive numbers of people, dependent on unemployment assistance because there are no few jobs left for which they are employable, through no fault of their own?

Families choosing to have fewer children as a result of the lack of jobs, resulting in population decline?

Other scenario?

I still vote for automating all manual labor, and transferring to a society where the idea of currency no longer exists because it's not necessary from a technological standpoint.

 

All we really need to do it, is the ability to recycle things on an atomic level (break things down to their constituent elements) and the ability to re-assemble those elements into anything we might need.

 

Basically, the star trek universe.

[Techhog]

If you work in a menial labor scenario and end up jobless through automation, that is your fault. You should always be looking for new skills and value to bring to your company or to another of conditions become intolerable. Not doing this is a failure to invest in oneself.

Found the republican. You probably idolize Glenn Beck.

 

"Just stop being poor!"

[patrickjp93]

Found the republican. You probably idolize Glenn Beck.

"Just stop being poor!"

I'm a staunch democrat. But I'm also a realist whose family clawed its way up from being poor to being well-off even if not quite millionaires. Getting out of poverty is not that difficult unless you're laden in debt while trying to get the apartment to be close to your job.

[Techhog]

I'm a staunch democrat. But I'm also a realist whose family clawed its way up from being poor to being well-off even if not quite millionaires. Getting out of poverty is not that difficult unless you're laden in debt while trying to get the apartment to be close to your job.

I don't think that you know what a realist is. You ignore factors such as location, culture, upbringing, education, and race, just to name a few. Being a white male American in Ohio, you're not in a position to say anything about the Chinese people most affected by this. Hell, I don't even know what your definition of "poor" was in regards to your family. 

 

There's nothing easy about it. It takes a lot of time and a lot of effort, and some people simply can't get there without a lot of help. Besides that, the number of higher jobs is very finite. Ever if everyone has the potential, not everyone can get there under any circumstance.