3 ms·

At ~$100,000 USD this will simply not replace dirt cheap labor in developing countries for decades to come.

ken 15y ago
Maybe not, but it could replace low-wage jobs in developed countries. Imagine a 24-hour fast-food restaurant that employs several people at minimum wage. A robot could work all 3 shifts around the clock nonstop, not require much space, and be "trained" in new types of food preparation with an instantaneous software upgrade. My economics professor once said he'd heard that if minimum wage got up to $20/hour, it would be cheaper for McD's to use robots. This is changing the other side of the equation.
- repsilat 15y ago
  Minimum wage in Australia is $15.51/hour + 9% superannuation contribution. This comes out to $16.91/hour or USD17.23/hour. If these things can work 24/7 with the same productivity of a worker on minimum wage they'll pay themselves off in eight months (plus/minus other costs associated with employees and these machines).
moe 15y ago
The price will naturally come down as they go into mass production. Also keep in mind robots will happily work 24 hour shifts in addition to being more effective per hour.
nl 15y ago
It might, if they are materially faster. Wages in China and India are growing. There are places with lower wages, but the infrastructure for major industry isn't always there.
Someone 15y ago
One decade, yes, but decades? I bet that, if you ordered 10,000 of these, the price would fall significantly; let's say to $25,000. Now suppose these things manage to run at a 80% duty cycle. That way, they run for around 130 hours a week, replacing 2.5 workers. Those workers make, say, about 2.5 x $1000 = $2500 a year, for a gap of 10:1. I do not think it will take a decade to close that gap. Firstly, you can design your factory for robots; get rid of most toilets, lunch facilities, walkways, etc. Also get rid of 90% of your huge HR staff (which is huge due to high personnel turnover). Pay the high-tech workers who do robot maintenance from the salaries of the toilet cleaners, restaurant personnel, etc, you got rid of. Also get rid of the non-billable hours you have now that you spend training personnel on producing this month's product. I think there will still be a large margin, especially since these things eat power (1.5kW per robot adds up) and since these robots may work slower than the humans they replace. Decades, however, is a long, long time. A single decade is a factor of 64 in Moore's law, so power usage will decrease to about 80W (for the robot) + 1500W/64 (for control hardware) ~= 100W in a decade. Alternatively, some of the extra CPU power, could, conceivably, be used to speed up these robots.

ken 15y ago

Maybe not, but it could replace low-wage jobs in developed countries. Imagine a 24-hour fast-food restaurant that employs several people at minimum wage. A robot could work all 3 shifts around the clock nonstop, not require much space, and be "trained" in new types of food preparation with an instantaneous software upgrade. My economics professor once said he'd heard that if minimum wage got up to $20/hour, it would be cheaper for McD's to use robots. This is changing the other side of the equation.

repsilat 15y ago
Minimum wage in Australia is $15.51/hour + 9% superannuation contribution. This comes out to $16.91/hour or USD17.23/hour. If these things can work 24/7 with the same productivity of a worker on minimum wage they'll pay themselves off in eight months (plus/minus other costs associated with employees and these machines).

moe 15y ago

The price will naturally come down as they go into mass production. Also keep in mind robots will happily work 24 hour shifts in addition to being more effective per hour.

nl 15y ago

It might, if they are materially faster. Wages in China and India are growing. There are places with lower wages, but the infrastructure for major industry isn't always there.

Someone 15y ago

One decade, yes, but decades? I bet that, if you ordered 10,000 of these, the price would fall significantly; let's say to $25,000. Now suppose these things manage to run at a 80% duty cycle. That way, they run for around 130 hours a week, replacing 2.5 workers. Those workers make, say, about 2.5 x $1000 = $2500 a year, for a gap of 10:1. I do not think it will take a decade to close that gap. Firstly, you can design your factory for robots; get rid of most toilets, lunch facilities, walkways, etc. Also get rid of 90% of your huge HR staff (which is huge due to high personnel turnover). Pay the high-tech workers who do robot maintenance from the salaries of the toilet cleaners, restaurant personnel, etc, you got rid of. Also get rid of the non-billable hours you have now that you spend training personnel on producing this month's product. I think there will still be a large margin, especially since these things eat power (1.5kW per robot adds up) and since these robots may work slower than the humans they replace. Decades, however, is a long, long time. A single decade is a factor of 64 in Moore's law, so power usage will decrease to about 80W (for the robot) + 1500W/64 (for control hardware) ~= 100W in a decade. Alternatively, some of the extra CPU power, could, conceivably, be used to speed up these robots.