3 ms·

There are a lot of places where manual labor is preferred to automation, not because automation is hard, but because automation is expensive, while labor can be

There are a lot of places where manual labor is preferred to automation, not because automation is hard, but because automation is expensive, while labor can be found for dirt cheep.

sct202 4y ago
Also if you only need labor part of the year like for Christmas for Amazon, if you fully automated Amazon would have to have a bunch of expensive idle robots for the rest of the year. With people you can hire them as seasonal temps for just when you need them.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I would think that goes the other way, as a benefit to automation. People are a lot more volatile than machines, so scaling up and down in periods of high and low demand is more predictable with machines.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    Machines are a capital expenditure. You basically can't scale them down below their initial investment cost to acquire. Order picking is, in the grand scheme of human employment, essentially unskilled labor. It takes a bit of practice to get efficient, and a certain level of perseverance and endurance to operate at top efficiency, but it doesn't take any form of higher study, credentialing or apprenticeship to become qualified at. Scaling seasonal workers in this role is relatively trivial in terms of expense compared to purchasing robots. Final note: humans take years to become obsolete and replaced by newer generations. The same isn't true with robots. If you can get full use out of one year round, it is much easier to justify investing now rather than 5 years from now than if you only get two months a year use out of it.
    - datavirtue 4y ago
      How about WFH drone robot operators? You could automate and macro some things and wouldn't need people onsite.
      - zdragnar 4y ago
        That sounds a lot like the worst of both worlds. Massive capital outlay to manage peak capacity, and your employees need to be a bit more specialized- they need a solid internet connection at home, and sufficiently skilled with technology to remotely operate a robot. Not only that, but now your robots aren't autonomous and are controlled by someone outside of the building. Operations security becomes significantly more complex, as does managing what happens when a robot gets stuck and your remote operator is interfering with the people onsite trying to fix the problem.
johnfn 4y ago
Like... the UK? Not exactly the first place that comes to mind for "cheap labor".
- ben_w 4y ago
  Perhaps it should. The UK has both low unemployment and also a cost-of-living crisis, which implies (to me, I'm not an economist) that labour is underpaid locally compared to other economic inputs.
  - rjh29 4y ago
    It also has a relatively high minimum wage (compared to the US) and high employment tax and lots of pro-employee regulations. Hiring people is very expensive for employers here, even if _average_ salaries are low. The cost of living is not just related to salary but also energy being 3x more expensive than usual, house prices, food prices going up 30%, Brexit, etc.
  - iso1210 4y ago
    Either that or due to political restrictions preventing more housing being built, land is overvalued. Any increase in wages is taken by landlords who increase the rent. The competition for a house isn't the next door house, it's not living in the city at all.

There are a lot of places where manual labor is preferred to automation, not because automation is hard, but because automation is expensive, while labor can be found for dirt cheep.

sct202 4y ago

Also if you only need labor part of the year like for Christmas for Amazon, if you fully automated Amazon would have to have a bunch of expensive idle robots for the rest of the year. With people you can hire them as seasonal temps for just when you need them.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I would think that goes the other way, as a benefit to automation. People are a lot more volatile than machines, so scaling up and down in periods of high and low demand is more predictable with machines.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Machines are a capital expenditure. You basically can't scale them down below their initial investment cost to acquire. Order picking is, in the grand scheme of human employment, essentially unskilled labor. It takes a bit of practice to get efficient, and a certain level of perseverance and endurance to operate at top efficiency, but it doesn't take any form of higher study, credentialing or apprenticeship to become qualified at. Scaling seasonal workers in this role is relatively trivial in terms of expense compared to purchasing robots. Final note: humans take years to become obsolete and replaced by newer generations. The same isn't true with robots. If you can get full use out of one year round, it is much easier to justify investing now rather than 5 years from now than if you only get two months a year use out of it.
  - datavirtue 4y ago
    How about WFH drone robot operators? You could automate and macro some things and wouldn't need people onsite.
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      That sounds a lot like the worst of both worlds. Massive capital outlay to manage peak capacity, and your employees need to be a bit more specialized- they need a solid internet connection at home, and sufficiently skilled with technology to remotely operate a robot. Not only that, but now your robots aren't autonomous and are controlled by someone outside of the building. Operations security becomes significantly more complex, as does managing what happens when a robot gets stuck and your remote operator is interfering with the people onsite trying to fix the problem.

johnfn 4y ago

Like... the UK? Not exactly the first place that comes to mind for "cheap labor".

ben_w 4y ago
Perhaps it should. The UK has both low unemployment and also a cost-of-living crisis, which implies (to me, I'm not an economist) that labour is underpaid locally compared to other economic inputs.
- rjh29 4y ago
  It also has a relatively high minimum wage (compared to the US) and high employment tax and lots of pro-employee regulations. Hiring people is very expensive for employers here, even if _average_ salaries are low. The cost of living is not just related to salary but also energy being 3x more expensive than usual, house prices, food prices going up 30%, Brexit, etc.
- iso1210 4y ago
  Either that or due to political restrictions preventing more housing being built, land is overvalued. Any increase in wages is taken by landlords who increase the rent. The competition for a house isn't the next door house, it's not living in the city at all.