5 ms·

So what exactly stops a "bad employer" from just putting more money into automation?

by anonymous5133 8y ago

dunpeal 8y ago
If Amazon and Walmart could automate all these jobs, do you think they wouldn't have already?
- bertil 8y ago
  My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense. In practice, it’s a little more complicated than that because automation requires investments that are long to set-up, risky, etc. but there are reasons to believe that this suggestion, if it passes would have two effect: - accelerate automation overall; - convince Amazon to employ directly more of its workers (they are typically going through employment agencies at the moment) and re-think its schedules. The dirty secret of that industry is that Amazon would like people to come at certain hours but doesn’t really think beyond its operations, partially because they have an arms-length relationship with temporary workers. Agencies are all too willing to comply, and force powerless temp workers into the grinder, arguing that they are just bowing to “the market”. The layers of bureaucracy prevents Amazon from raising internally the point that shifts at reasonable hours, with breaks. This means employees can think more critically of their job, and contribute greatly to innovation.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    > My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense. Human labor is so far behind machine labor, that raising its cost by a little bit won't make much of a difference. When it comes to manual labor, machines are so much cheaper, more efficient, cheaper, less risky (medically, legally, criminally), stable, and reliable, that there's no comparison really. Big companies like Amazon therefore automate wherever they can already. Based on articles about their fulfillment centers, the only jobs remaining there are those robots don't do very well right now. These will eventually disappear regardless of the passage of provocatively-titled PR-focused laws (which probably won't pass anyway in current congress). I'm not sure I understand your second point, especially how relevant it is to the current discussion. This is about Amazon compensating employees with such minimal and pay and benefits that they must seek welfare assistance and thus effectively are paid by the taxpayer. Working conditions have nothing to do with that, although (obviously) the same weak employees (or "contractors") who receive so little pay will receive little consideration in these and other regards as well.
    - bertil 8y ago
      Working conditions are directly related to pay: they are paid less not because Amazon is going against the letter of the law on minimum wage but because the agencies providing the workforce use extortionate techniques. They make sure not to hit work-hour thresholds to owe employees full benefits. In some areas, they demand that employees use a work-van to get there, and they have to pay the driver absurd amounts to use that “service”. Working conditions are so dire that the temp workers can’t offer suggestion on working conditions, conditions that would help Amazon integrate better automation in their current system, and make paying workers more comfortably more sensical. You can’t extract work problems from their context.
      - dunpeal 8y ago
        > Working conditions are so dire that the temp workers can’t offer suggestion on working conditions, conditions that would help Amazon integrate better automation in their current system, and make paying workers more comfortably more sensical. Not sure I follow. From reading articles about it, the "working conditions" are "dire" because Amazon can press workers to work very hard (fill quotas) in large warehouses that are barely suitable for human habitation. Both of these are related to Amazon squeezing pennies out of employees/contractors who have zero leverage. The problem isn't that these employees can't offer "suggestions". Amazon knows very well that if it lowered quotas, allowed more breaks, and added air-conditioning to warehouses, working conditions will improve. It doesn't do these things because these employees have zero leverage so Amazon makes more money by not offering these improvements.
        bertil 8y ago
        I don't think we disagree, but I'm not sure I get where you want to take this discussion.
        dunpeal 8y ago
        My point is that it's not some trivial issue of Amazon "not listening", or anything else that is easy to fix. The fundamental problem is that unskilled labor is very low value, and as automation increases, will get even lower.
- LinuxBender 8y ago
  Walmart is working on it. Some of the stores have bots going up and down the isles doing inventory. Next will be stocking shelves. I know a manager at one of those Walmarts. They are one of the test stores for this tech. Amazon use some bots and are working on automating more of the warehouse jobs, IIRC. Unrelated: I like your username! :-)
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    Pretty much what I expected. When I've spoken to engineers involved in Amazon operations, they rather proudly mentioned how aggressively they are automating everything. Their goal seem to be 100% automation, and the only remaining jobs are those that can't be automated just yet. I don't know anything about Walmart, but given Amazon's path, they have no choice but to follow suite to stay competitive. Unrelated: thanks!
- anonymous5133 8y ago
  Yes, of course. The kicker from what I see is that every year the robot technology gets better and better. The truth is that most of these warehouse jobs are eventually going to get automated away. So that leaves the question...who will employ these workers? Our system of employee retraining (government education) isn't exactly efficient nor is is cheap.
  - dunpeal 8y ago
    "Retraining" is a reassuring little myth. While it's possible that some manual warehouse workers have the capacity to "retrain" to a more skilled job, the reality is that there are more than enough incentives for them to have done so already: pay, benefits, job security, status, etc. Those who chose minimal-wage, no-benefits work in terrible conditions over much better skilled work have done so because they are either strongly deterred by the nature of skilled work or lack the capacity for it. So the problem isn't "retraining". The problem is that the percentage of humanity that can be replaced by machines of superior intelligence is increasing.
mygo 8y ago
the current state of artificial intelligence unless you mean putting more money into AI research, which they are still, the jury is still out on whether the laws of nature allow to build AIs that can do every job and totally replace human resources. and whether reaching that point implies you’ve just built a new sentient being that will be unionizing and campaigning for equal rights and equal pay and better silicon in no time.
- bertil 8y ago
  AI is a big part of it, but the key linchpin for a lot of human labor in Amazon’s fulfilment centres is grabbing, the ability to hold an object, given its shape and structure. The efforts in that direction are very active (although not as much as AI in general) but slightly different. You need sensors able to understand pressure and very subtle micro-controllers able to apply exactly the right kind of pressure. You need to think about the ideal shape for a “hand”. Another big part of Amazon-related workers is their delivery third-parties. Self-driving truck could help, but they will still need people to unload the trucks and deal with the idiosyncrasies of every location. There were plans to use autonomous hexacopters (“drones”) but I don’t think those make sense at scale and for larger items.
  - erik_seaberg 8y ago
    Grabbing already works well enough for tape libraries. I wonder why they haven't switched from cardboard to reusable crates or pallets.
  - mygo 8y ago
    > The efforts in that direction are very active (although not as much as AI in general) but slightly different. You need sensors able to understand pressure and very subtle micro-controllers able to apply exactly the right kind of pressure. You need to think about the ideal shape for a “hand”. You’re saying building a hand that can feel and sense is not really AI in general. I say that “sense” and “sentient” have the same latin root — sentire, to feel. From what we know about intelligence and its relationship with sentience, giving something a sense of feeling implies applying artificial intelligence... and is a step towards artificial sentience IMO. It’s definitely not a step away from it. Those sensors sound like nerves to me.
harryh 8y ago
Fight for $15! Fight for the future! Robots for a higher minimum wage! https://imgur.com/a/PchOOgZ https://imgur.com/a/PchOOgZ
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Automation can be taxed. Automation IP can have its patents invalidated. Automation copyright can be revoked. People Over Profits. Why is that such a difficult concept? Why is the "free market" so revered? Show me why it is better than the least well off living comfortably with shareholders making a lower return. If a trillion dollars isn't enough, what is?
  - mabramo 8y ago
    Tax automation. Don't prevent companies from getting rid of their human workforce - redistribute wages "paid" to robots to humans.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - harryh 8y ago
    I'm fine with taxing people to help the least well off. I just think that responsibility should fall equally on all of us and not, as this bill does, single out particular kinds of businesses over other types of businesses.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      This bill is being put forth because conservative and moderate democratic politicians won't raise the minimum wage, and this is one of the few hammers Sanders has available to him. You can't not do anything when people are being taken advantage of and you're waiting for midterms and 2020 elections. Disclaimer: I donate heavily to progressive candidates (and only progressive candidates).
mabramo 8y ago
Nothing except cost. If employees cost more than developing and implementing AI, then they will do it. In preparation for the move to a totally AI driven customer interface (which WILL happen, barring any large scale disaster), legislators needs to implement some solution to keep currency flowing to the people. If everything except highly skilled professions are automated, there will be a hell of a lot unemployment. Off the top of my head, one potential solution I've heard is that companies should pay wages to robots and those wages will be paid as tax to the government who would redistribute the wealth as universal basic income. We're surely decades or more from near total automation, but it's worth thinking about as a serious matter as we are living in the robot revolution.

So what exactly stops a "bad employer" from just putting more money into automation?

dunpeal 8y ago

If Amazon and Walmart could automate all these jobs, do you think they wouldn't have already?

bertil 8y ago
My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense. In practice, it’s a little more complicated than that because automation requires investments that are long to set-up, risky, etc. but there are reasons to believe that this suggestion, if it passes would have two effect: - accelerate automation overall; - convince Amazon to employ directly more of its workers (they are typically going through employment agencies at the moment) and re-think its schedules. The dirty secret of that industry is that Amazon would like people to come at certain hours but doesn’t really think beyond its operations, partially because they have an arms-length relationship with temporary workers. Agencies are all too willing to comply, and force powerless temp workers into the grinder, arguing that they are just bowing to “the market”. The layers of bureaucracy prevents Amazon from raising internally the point that shifts at reasonable hours, with breaks. This means employees can think more critically of their job, and contribute greatly to innovation.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  > My understanding is that they are moving towards it, but raising the price of human labor shift the frontier where changing to automation makes sense. Human labor is so far behind machine labor, that raising its cost by a little bit won't make much of a difference. When it comes to manual labor, machines are so much cheaper, more efficient, cheaper, less risky (medically, legally, criminally), stable, and reliable, that there's no comparison really. Big companies like Amazon therefore automate wherever they can already. Based on articles about their fulfillment centers, the only jobs remaining there are those robots don't do very well right now. These will eventually disappear regardless of the passage of provocatively-titled PR-focused laws (which probably won't pass anyway in current congress). I'm not sure I understand your second point, especially how relevant it is to the current discussion. This is about Amazon compensating employees with such minimal and pay and benefits that they must seek welfare assistance and thus effectively are paid by the taxpayer. Working conditions have nothing to do with that, although (obviously) the same weak employees (or "contractors") who receive so little pay will receive little consideration in these and other regards as well.
  - bertil 8y ago
    Working conditions are directly related to pay: they are paid less not because Amazon is going against the letter of the law on minimum wage but because the agencies providing the workforce use extortionate techniques. They make sure not to hit work-hour thresholds to owe employees full benefits. In some areas, they demand that employees use a work-van to get there, and they have to pay the driver absurd amounts to use that “service”. Working conditions are so dire that the temp workers can’t offer suggestion on working conditions, conditions that would help Amazon integrate better automation in their current system, and make paying workers more comfortably more sensical. You can’t extract work problems from their context.
    - dunpeal 8y ago
      > Working conditions are so dire that the temp workers can’t offer suggestion on working conditions, conditions that would help Amazon integrate better automation in their current system, and make paying workers more comfortably more sensical. Not sure I follow. From reading articles about it, the "working conditions" are "dire" because Amazon can press workers to work very hard (fill quotas) in large warehouses that are barely suitable for human habitation. Both of these are related to Amazon squeezing pennies out of employees/contractors who have zero leverage. The problem isn't that these employees can't offer "suggestions". Amazon knows very well that if it lowered quotas, allowed more breaks, and added air-conditioning to warehouses, working conditions will improve. It doesn't do these things because these employees have zero leverage so Amazon makes more money by not offering these improvements.
      - bertil 8y ago
        I don't think we disagree, but I'm not sure I get where you want to take this discussion.
        dunpeal 8y ago
        My point is that it's not some trivial issue of Amazon "not listening", or anything else that is easy to fix. The fundamental problem is that unskilled labor is very low value, and as automation increases, will get even lower.
LinuxBender 8y ago
Walmart is working on it. Some of the stores have bots going up and down the isles doing inventory. Next will be stocking shelves. I know a manager at one of those Walmarts. They are one of the test stores for this tech. Amazon use some bots and are working on automating more of the warehouse jobs, IIRC. Unrelated: I like your username! :-)
- dunpeal 8y ago
  Pretty much what I expected. When I've spoken to engineers involved in Amazon operations, they rather proudly mentioned how aggressively they are automating everything. Their goal seem to be 100% automation, and the only remaining jobs are those that can't be automated just yet. I don't know anything about Walmart, but given Amazon's path, they have no choice but to follow suite to stay competitive. Unrelated: thanks!
anonymous5133 8y ago
Yes, of course. The kicker from what I see is that every year the robot technology gets better and better. The truth is that most of these warehouse jobs are eventually going to get automated away. So that leaves the question...who will employ these workers? Our system of employee retraining (government education) isn't exactly efficient nor is is cheap.
- dunpeal 8y ago
  "Retraining" is a reassuring little myth. While it's possible that some manual warehouse workers have the capacity to "retrain" to a more skilled job, the reality is that there are more than enough incentives for them to have done so already: pay, benefits, job security, status, etc. Those who chose minimal-wage, no-benefits work in terrible conditions over much better skilled work have done so because they are either strongly deterred by the nature of skilled work or lack the capacity for it. So the problem isn't "retraining". The problem is that the percentage of humanity that can be replaced by machines of superior intelligence is increasing.

mygo 8y ago

the current state of artificial intelligence unless you mean putting more money into AI research, which they are still, the jury is still out on whether the laws of nature allow to build AIs that can do every job and totally replace human resources. and whether reaching that point implies you’ve just built a new sentient being that will be unionizing and campaigning for equal rights and equal pay and better silicon in no time.

bertil 8y ago
AI is a big part of it, but the key linchpin for a lot of human labor in Amazon’s fulfilment centres is grabbing, the ability to hold an object, given its shape and structure. The efforts in that direction are very active (although not as much as AI in general) but slightly different. You need sensors able to understand pressure and very subtle micro-controllers able to apply exactly the right kind of pressure. You need to think about the ideal shape for a “hand”. Another big part of Amazon-related workers is their delivery third-parties. Self-driving truck could help, but they will still need people to unload the trucks and deal with the idiosyncrasies of every location. There were plans to use autonomous hexacopters (“drones”) but I don’t think those make sense at scale and for larger items.
- erik_seaberg 8y ago
  Grabbing already works well enough for tape libraries. I wonder why they haven't switched from cardboard to reusable crates or pallets.
- mygo 8y ago
  > The efforts in that direction are very active (although not as much as AI in general) but slightly different. You need sensors able to understand pressure and very subtle micro-controllers able to apply exactly the right kind of pressure. You need to think about the ideal shape for a “hand”. You’re saying building a hand that can feel and sense is not really AI in general. I say that “sense” and “sentient” have the same latin root — sentire, to feel. From what we know about intelligence and its relationship with sentience, giving something a sense of feeling implies applying artificial intelligence... and is a step towards artificial sentience IMO. It’s definitely not a step away from it. Those sensors sound like nerves to me.

harryh 8y ago

Fight for $15! Fight for the future! Robots for a higher minimum wage! https://imgur.com/a/PchOOgZ https://imgur.com/a/PchOOgZ

toomuchtodo 8y ago
Automation can be taxed. Automation IP can have its patents invalidated. Automation copyright can be revoked. People Over Profits. Why is that such a difficult concept? Why is the "free market" so revered? Show me why it is better than the least well off living comfortably with shareholders making a lower return. If a trillion dollars isn't enough, what is?
- mabramo 8y ago
  Tax automation. Don't prevent companies from getting rid of their human workforce - redistribute wages "paid" to robots to humans.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- harryh 8y ago
  I'm fine with taxing people to help the least well off. I just think that responsibility should fall equally on all of us and not, as this bill does, single out particular kinds of businesses over other types of businesses.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    This bill is being put forth because conservative and moderate democratic politicians won't raise the minimum wage, and this is one of the few hammers Sanders has available to him. You can't not do anything when people are being taken advantage of and you're waiting for midterms and 2020 elections. Disclaimer: I donate heavily to progressive candidates (and only progressive candidates).

mabramo 8y ago

Nothing except cost. If employees cost more than developing and implementing AI, then they will do it. In preparation for the move to a totally AI driven customer interface (which WILL happen, barring any large scale disaster), legislators needs to implement some solution to keep currency flowing to the people. If everything except highly skilled professions are automated, there will be a hell of a lot unemployment. Off the top of my head, one potential solution I've heard is that companies should pay wages to robots and those wages will be paid as tax to the government who would redistribute the wealth as universal basic income. We're surely decades or more from near total automation, but it's worth thinking about as a serious matter as we are living in the robot revolution.