4 ms·

Someone has to service the machines. Also, big machines are expensive to transport, so it makes sense to make them closer to where they will be used, leading to

Someone has to service the machines. Also, big machines are expensive to transport, so it makes sense to make them closer to where they will be used, leading to more service jobs. There are also a lot of engineering jobs designing the hardware and software of these automated factories.

torpfactory 10y ago
Doesn't the question then become how many and at what salary do these engineering jobs exist? Seems like there typically are fewer jobs and the total compensation for labor is reduced when manufacturing is automated (why else would the company pursue such a course of action?)
- blackguardx 10y ago
  The engineering jobs already exist. Factory automation has been a big business for decades (Siemens, Rockwell Automation, Mitsubishi and others). They generally aren't high paying compared to Silicon Valley software engineers, but pay more than civil engineers. Automation will continue, but labor will probably never be completely replaced within our lifetimes. I think it makes sense to have factories and make physical goods in the US. It is easier to bring hardware to market when the production is in the same timezone. I think it leads to a more robust economy even if there is heavy automation. There are still ancillary jobs associated with factories.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
Yes, but this isn't very many jobs. The amount of labor per unit of productivity is drastically reduced in any case. If we can attract new factories then it could be a net win, but someone will lose out (not china, but Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, and other countries that are trying to break into middle income).
- blackguardx 10y ago
  Some jobs is better than no jobs, right?
  - mjevans 10y ago
    Actually no. Zero jobs would be best, because then -everything- that people didn't do for their own sense of enjoyment would be automated.
    - blackguardx 10y ago
      One outcome would be a utopia where everyone would share equally in this new prosperity. Another would be a distopia where the prosperity only went to the factory owners.
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      Well, there is the theory that employed masses are too busy to cause trouble (e.g. demand more equality), and much of our society is structured around keeping the non-upper class busy, even if that means making them move dirt between holes. The distribution of wealth sort of bears this out.
wott 10y ago
The whole point of automation is to increase benefit by increasing productivity, i.e. by either increasing the production output for the same amount of jobs, or decreasing the amount of jobs needed for the same production. Since we already produce about everything in the amount we need (and sometimes much more than we need), there is no point in increasing production (it would not be sold, consumed), so productivity gains will translate into cost reduction, i.e. less jobs.
- blackguardx 10y ago
  No one is arguing that. The argument is if we should have automated factories in high paying regions (like the US). I'm arguing that having automated factories here is better than no factories here.

torpfactory 10y ago

Doesn't the question then become how many and at what salary do these engineering jobs exist? Seems like there typically are fewer jobs and the total compensation for labor is reduced when manufacturing is automated (why else would the company pursue such a course of action?)

blackguardx 10y ago
The engineering jobs already exist. Factory automation has been a big business for decades (Siemens, Rockwell Automation, Mitsubishi and others). They generally aren't high paying compared to Silicon Valley software engineers, but pay more than civil engineers. Automation will continue, but labor will probably never be completely replaced within our lifetimes. I think it makes sense to have factories and make physical goods in the US. It is easier to bring hardware to market when the production is in the same timezone. I think it leads to a more robust economy even if there is heavy automation. There are still ancillary jobs associated with factories.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

Yes, but this isn't very many jobs. The amount of labor per unit of productivity is drastically reduced in any case. If we can attract new factories then it could be a net win, but someone will lose out (not china, but Bangladesh, India, Vietnam, and other countries that are trying to break into middle income).

blackguardx 10y ago
Some jobs is better than no jobs, right?
- mjevans 10y ago
  Actually no. Zero jobs would be best, because then -everything- that people didn't do for their own sense of enjoyment would be automated.
  - blackguardx 10y ago
    One outcome would be a utopia where everyone would share equally in this new prosperity. Another would be a distopia where the prosperity only went to the factory owners.
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    Well, there is the theory that employed masses are too busy to cause trouble (e.g. demand more equality), and much of our society is structured around keeping the non-upper class busy, even if that means making them move dirt between holes. The distribution of wealth sort of bears this out.

wott 10y ago

The whole point of automation is to increase benefit by increasing productivity, i.e. by either increasing the production output for the same amount of jobs, or decreasing the amount of jobs needed for the same production. Since we already produce about everything in the amount we need (and sometimes much more than we need), there is no point in increasing production (it would not be sold, consumed), so productivity gains will translate into cost reduction, i.e. less jobs.

blackguardx 10y ago
No one is arguing that. The argument is if we should have automated factories in high paying regions (like the US). I'm arguing that having automated factories here is better than no factories here.