3 ms·

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.

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.