3 ms·

If a robot cost £1mil (including install) and lasts for 10 years with zero maintenance or other costs, then it's cheaper to employ 4 people on 25k a year to do

If a robot cost £1mil (including install) and lasts for 10 years with zero maintenance or other costs, then it's cheaper to employ 4 people on 25k a year to do the same job. And that's without things like seasonal demand changes or government grants for hiring people. 1mil for a robot isn't that much. Does anyone make a robot that can work (at least) as fast as 4 people and never need maintaining etc?

willcipriano 4y ago
It's the same economics that made slavery not viable. Sure you don't have to pay labor costs with a slave but if they break their arm you have to call a doctor, otherwise you are out the money you paid for the slave (and that is many years of a typical man's wages), and either way you aren't getting any work until they are healed. It's much more economical to work humans that you've paid a wage, to the bone, and once they are broken, fire them for lack of performance and hire another. No upfront capital outlay, no ongoing costs when they are injured and can't work for you, hell you don't even need to pay them enough to survive, wage slaves beat actual slaves every time. Amazon's problem is they hit such a scale they are starting to run out of wage slaves. They either broke them already or the potential worker has friends or family broken by them so they are wise to the deal. If this wasn't the case they would have little interest in automation.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Slavery was economically viable.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    After the post Civil War recession, economic growth rates increased dramatically[0]. While slavery made individual southerners wealthy, it's abolition resulted in a broader more dynamic economy that took millions out of poverty. [0]https://fee.org/articles/no-slavery-did-not-make-america-rich/ https://fee.org/articles/no-slavery-did-not-make-america-ric...
    - rovolo 4y ago
      > While slavery made individual southerners wealthy, it's abolition [...] took millions out of poverty. But your original argument was about the economics for the enslaver, not for the population. > It's the same economics that made slavery not viable. Sure you don't have to pay labor costs with a slave but if they break their arm you have to call a doctor [...] It's much more economical to work humans that you've paid a wage to the bone [...] wage slaves beat actual slaves every time. You're trying to make a point about capital vs operational expenses, but your example of US slavery's economic viability is both poor and distracting. Enslaving people is generally a financial boon for the enslaver. Focusing on the economic costs of owning your laborers and discounting the lack of wages sounds a lot like the "Positive Good" arguments from the mid 1800s: > Slavery is said to be an evil... But is no evil. On the contrary, I believe it to be the greatest of all the great blessings which a kind Providence has bestowed upon our glorious region... As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth... Lightly tasked, well clothed, well fed—far better than the free laborers of any country in the world, ... their lives and persons protected by the law, all their sufferings alleviated by the kindest and most interested care.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_as_a_positive_good_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_as_a_positive_good_in_...
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - notch656c 4y ago
    Economically viable but not economically competitive. The populace of North Korea are basically slaves yet their economy is in the shitters. Workers competing for most productive use of their labor leads to better outcome for the rich capital owners.
  - heavenlyblue 4y ago
    You also don't need to heal your slaves - you can just dispose of them whenever you want. Possibly by blaming them for breaking their hand intentionally to evade work. Possibly by telling all of the other slaves that so that they would hate on the one that thinks they are better than others.
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      Great, now you have a slave with a broken hand and a new one costs multiple decades of man's wages. If you just paid wages in the first place, you'd pay less upfront and not have a worker with a broken hand.

willcipriano 4y ago

It's the same economics that made slavery not viable. Sure you don't have to pay labor costs with a slave but if they break their arm you have to call a doctor, otherwise you are out the money you paid for the slave (and that is many years of a typical man's wages), and either way you aren't getting any work until they are healed. It's much more economical to work humans that you've paid a wage, to the bone, and once they are broken, fire them for lack of performance and hire another. No upfront capital outlay, no ongoing costs when they are injured and can't work for you, hell you don't even need to pay them enough to survive, wage slaves beat actual slaves every time. Amazon's problem is they hit such a scale they are starting to run out of wage slaves. They either broke them already or the potential worker has friends or family broken by them so they are wise to the deal. If this wasn't the case they would have little interest in automation.

pessimizer 4y ago
Slavery was economically viable.
- willcipriano 4y ago
  After the post Civil War recession, economic growth rates increased dramatically[0]. While slavery made individual southerners wealthy, it's abolition resulted in a broader more dynamic economy that took millions out of poverty. [0]https://fee.org/articles/no-slavery-did-not-make-america-rich/ https://fee.org/articles/no-slavery-did-not-make-america-ric...
  - rovolo 4y ago
    > While slavery made individual southerners wealthy, it's abolition [...] took millions out of poverty. But your original argument was about the economics for the enslaver, not for the population. > It's the same economics that made slavery not viable. Sure you don't have to pay labor costs with a slave but if they break their arm you have to call a doctor [...] It's much more economical to work humans that you've paid a wage to the bone [...] wage slaves beat actual slaves every time. You're trying to make a point about capital vs operational expenses, but your example of US slavery's economic viability is both poor and distracting. Enslaving people is generally a financial boon for the enslaver. Focusing on the economic costs of owning your laborers and discounting the lack of wages sounds a lot like the "Positive Good" arguments from the mid 1800s: > Slavery is said to be an evil... But is no evil. On the contrary, I believe it to be the greatest of all the great blessings which a kind Providence has bestowed upon our glorious region... As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth... Lightly tasked, well clothed, well fed—far better than the free laborers of any country in the world, ... their lives and persons protected by the law, all their sufferings alleviated by the kindest and most interested care.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_as_a_positive_good_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_as_a_positive_good_in_...
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- notch656c 4y ago
  Economically viable but not economically competitive. The populace of North Korea are basically slaves yet their economy is in the shitters. Workers competing for most productive use of their labor leads to better outcome for the rich capital owners.
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  You also don't need to heal your slaves - you can just dispose of them whenever you want. Possibly by blaming them for breaking their hand intentionally to evade work. Possibly by telling all of the other slaves that so that they would hate on the one that thinks they are better than others.
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    Great, now you have a slave with a broken hand and a new one costs multiple decades of man's wages. If you just paid wages in the first place, you'd pay less upfront and not have a worker with a broken hand.