3 ms·

The west definitely needs to get back to manufacturing. You get rich making things, and poor buying them. Robots will, in the next few decades, wipe out all th

by shingen 15y ago

The west definitely needs to get back to manufacturing. You get rich making things, and poor buying them. Robots will, in the next few decades, wipe out all the labor benefit that China has. Their huge population base value will shift to being a huge liability. Bring 5 million manufacturing jobs back to America through 100 million robots (that never riot, demand wage increases, unionize, go on vacation, can work 24/7, and get better constantly), and the cheap labor advantage that China has completely disappears. The only question is who will dominate robotic manufacturing, not whether it'll happen. http://www.heartlandrobotics.com/ http://www.heartlandrobotics.com/

DanBC 15y ago
Industrial robots exist today. Look at, for example, pick and place machines used in electronic manufacturing. Look at this teeny tiny little pick and place machine. ( It can place 500 components a minute.) (http://www.acrosemi.com/eng_samsung_SM411.htm http://www.acrosemi.com/eng_samsung_SM411.htm) Or at this slightly bigger setup: (http://www.acrosemi.com/eng_samsung_fulllineSMT.htm http://www.acrosemi.com/eng_samsung_fulllineSMT.htm) These still need staff to run. You need staff to program the machines; you need staff to load components; you need staff to move the product around; you need staff to maintain the machines. And then you need staff to do the things that your robots can't yet do. I have no idea how much someone would get paid for that in US, but I know it's a lot less in Poland / India / China / etc.
- ssmoot 15y ago
  About $12/hr. I did that once upon a time as a temporary job in San Antonio. Or maybe it was Austin. I forget the name of the company, but it was mostly small-batch PCBs carrying a hefty price tag. Throughput was probably 1 board a minute if you include loading, screening, letting the machine do it's thing, moving to the baking machine (I forget the name, but you know, the conveyor oven thing that melts the solder) and passing along to the test/QA benches. I think these were mostly for Telecom vendors, but it was just small batch PCB production for hire stuff. I've got to believe the labor costs were a small fraction of the overall business costs. Just one component could be $50, so the inevitable loss of the occasional part, or a PCB that didn't pass QA would cost 10X more than the labor costs for the entire hour it was produced in.
  - sbierwagen 15y ago
    (I forget the name, but you know, the conveyor oven thing that melts the solder) Reflow oven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflow_soldering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflow_soldering
- shingen 15y ago
  Yep, you're talking about today. I assume you understand the revolution going on in robotics right now; from the software, to the materials to the process intelligence to the motors and fine manipulation. We're at warp 1 about to accelerate to warp 10. Today's factory robots are absolutely nothing like what's in the lab today, and what's coming this decade.
ams6110 15y ago
Dyson himself says it's not really (or not only) a matter of labor costs. Same thing in the story a few months ago about why Apple manufactures in China: the entire supply chain is there. When ALL your component manufacturers are located in Asia, it makes little sense to do your final assembly elsewhere, and labor cost has become a pretty small factor in the face of that.
- analyst74 15y ago
  Labour cost might be small for companies like Dyson and Apple, who have very high margins. It may not be true for lower level products and components, where a small increase/decrease in cost (labour or not), will affect margin significantly.
  - jf271 15y ago
    It isn't just the labor cost but the whole supply chain costs. If the vendors that make the parts are in the same country and close to the assembly plant it costs less to ship from the vendor and there is less red tape around importation of the parts for assembly. This is one of the big reasons Apple makes almost everything in China.
- learc83 15y ago
  >When ALL your component manufacturers are located in Asia The reason all component manufacture are in Asia is because labor costs make up a much larger percentage of the total cost for smaller lower margin components. The final labor cost for a Dyson is much higher than just what they pay for assembly, you have to add all the wages for each part up the chain.
- georgieporgie 15y ago
  Same thing in the story a few months ago about why Apple manufactures in China: the entire supply chain is there. And that's a total BS claim. Apple is sitting on $100 billion now and still whining about how there are no companies in the US with sufficient manufacturing capabilities, as if that's forcing them against their will. In reality, there is nothing stopping them from creating such factories in the US or elsewhere. However, they can't get 10,000 workers in employee housing and, at the snap of their fingers, put them all on the assembly line in back-to-back 16 hour shifts. Ultimately, it's not about production facilities nor simple labor costs, but rather how they can treat Chinese workers.
ippisl 15y ago
5 million jobs doesn't sound like a lot, for such a total makeover of the economy. it's something like 4% of the working population. On the other hand, powerful robots would destroy many jobs.
- keeperofdakeys 15y ago
  It also creates other jobs, but continually means you are losing unskilled jobs. So unskilled labour workers need to be re-educated.
- shingen 15y ago
  5 million manufacturing jobs is a lot, particularly given that we'd be exporting huge amounts of goods with those robots, which would keep more of our wealth domestic rather than exporting it to improve other nations. Those robots need to be constructed; R&D'd; improved; maintained; installed; removed; and the robot ecosystem would support millions more jobs. The efficiency gains would justify the expenditures. The US economy will be made over by robots; we have the most efficient, large production economy on the planet, and are still the world's largest manufacturing nation (ahead of China, we export less). Our labor force participation rate has dropped from 67.5% in 1999/2000, down to 64% now; our U6 unemployment number is 15%. Millions of net job gains by taking manufacturing back from China, would not destroy many jobs at all (domestically), quite the opposite. Robots are amplifiers of human labor, not replacements. They still must be created, cared for, upgraded, overseen, and so on. The whole point is about one American with 30 robots to manage, becoming as labor efficient on price to output as 30 or more Chinese workers. The improvement scale in robotics is almost limitless; direct human labor however is extraordinarily limited in its capabilities. 5 million new jobs courtesy of taking manufacturing back from China would instantly push our labor force participation rate back up to where it was in 1999. While we'd simultaneously generate a massive pool of new domestic wealth by keeping that money here instead of sending it elsewhere for someone else to benefit from. We'd make more of the goods we consume; and we'd export more goods to the rest of the world. Competing with China is just one example, the reality is we'd want to look to create jobs by competing with everywhere we've lost manufacturing to since 1964 when America had 55% of all global manufacturing. And then let's remember that efficiency gains produce more wealth. Wealth is not a static pool to be swapped or stolen back and forth. Neither are jobs. It's entirely likely that we'll be able to create entirely new products that are now impossible courtesy of advanced robotic manufacturing, and that will mean completely new jobs, that would not have existed otherwise (versus say taking back old product manufacturing from China or similar).
samstave 15y ago
>Robots will, in the next few decades, wipe out all the labor benefit that China has. Not sure about this, however, China has been hedging against this as well. This is why they are securing all the natural resources in Africa. The US is SO fucking short sighted - while China has been thinking 50 to 100 years in advacne with respect to securing all the resources in Africa, the US believes it can just keep spending on a military that will be used to seize resources after political manipulations. The myopic view that the only resource that the US should be securing (oil in the mid east) is because the US' vision comes from greed-now viewpoint. (i.e. profit as much as possible on the near term, future be damned) There IS NO LONG TERM VISION in the US - from energy policy, tech, health etc. This is what is killing us.

by shingen 15y ago

DanBC 15y ago

Industrial robots exist today. Look at, for example, pick and place machines used in electronic manufacturing. Look at this teeny tiny little pick and place machine. ( It can place 500 components a minute.) (http://www.acrosemi.com/eng_samsung_SM411.htm http://www.acrosemi.com/eng_samsung_SM411.htm) Or at this slightly bigger setup: (http://www.acrosemi.com/eng_samsung_fulllineSMT.htm http://www.acrosemi.com/eng_samsung_fulllineSMT.htm) These still need staff to run. You need staff to program the machines; you need staff to load components; you need staff to move the product around; you need staff to maintain the machines. And then you need staff to do the things that your robots can't yet do. I have no idea how much someone would get paid for that in US, but I know it's a lot less in Poland / India / China / etc.

ssmoot 15y ago
About $12/hr. I did that once upon a time as a temporary job in San Antonio. Or maybe it was Austin. I forget the name of the company, but it was mostly small-batch PCBs carrying a hefty price tag. Throughput was probably 1 board a minute if you include loading, screening, letting the machine do it's thing, moving to the baking machine (I forget the name, but you know, the conveyor oven thing that melts the solder) and passing along to the test/QA benches. I think these were mostly for Telecom vendors, but it was just small batch PCB production for hire stuff. I've got to believe the labor costs were a small fraction of the overall business costs. Just one component could be $50, so the inevitable loss of the occasional part, or a PCB that didn't pass QA would cost 10X more than the labor costs for the entire hour it was produced in.
- sbierwagen 15y ago
  (I forget the name, but you know, the conveyor oven thing that melts the solder) Reflow oven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflow_soldering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflow_soldering
shingen 15y ago
Yep, you're talking about today. I assume you understand the revolution going on in robotics right now; from the software, to the materials to the process intelligence to the motors and fine manipulation. We're at warp 1 about to accelerate to warp 10. Today's factory robots are absolutely nothing like what's in the lab today, and what's coming this decade.

ams6110 15y ago

Dyson himself says it's not really (or not only) a matter of labor costs. Same thing in the story a few months ago about why Apple manufactures in China: the entire supply chain is there. When ALL your component manufacturers are located in Asia, it makes little sense to do your final assembly elsewhere, and labor cost has become a pretty small factor in the face of that.

analyst74 15y ago
Labour cost might be small for companies like Dyson and Apple, who have very high margins. It may not be true for lower level products and components, where a small increase/decrease in cost (labour or not), will affect margin significantly.
- jf271 15y ago
  It isn't just the labor cost but the whole supply chain costs. If the vendors that make the parts are in the same country and close to the assembly plant it costs less to ship from the vendor and there is less red tape around importation of the parts for assembly. This is one of the big reasons Apple makes almost everything in China.
learc83 15y ago
>When ALL your component manufacturers are located in Asia The reason all component manufacture are in Asia is because labor costs make up a much larger percentage of the total cost for smaller lower margin components. The final labor cost for a Dyson is much higher than just what they pay for assembly, you have to add all the wages for each part up the chain.
georgieporgie 15y ago
Same thing in the story a few months ago about why Apple manufactures in China: the entire supply chain is there. And that's a total BS claim. Apple is sitting on $100 billion now and still whining about how there are no companies in the US with sufficient manufacturing capabilities, as if that's forcing them against their will. In reality, there is nothing stopping them from creating such factories in the US or elsewhere. However, they can't get 10,000 workers in employee housing and, at the snap of their fingers, put them all on the assembly line in back-to-back 16 hour shifts. Ultimately, it's not about production facilities nor simple labor costs, but rather how they can treat Chinese workers.

ippisl 15y ago

5 million jobs doesn't sound like a lot, for such a total makeover of the economy. it's something like 4% of the working population. On the other hand, powerful robots would destroy many jobs.

keeperofdakeys 15y ago
It also creates other jobs, but continually means you are losing unskilled jobs. So unskilled labour workers need to be re-educated.
shingen 15y ago
5 million manufacturing jobs is a lot, particularly given that we'd be exporting huge amounts of goods with those robots, which would keep more of our wealth domestic rather than exporting it to improve other nations. Those robots need to be constructed; R&D'd; improved; maintained; installed; removed; and the robot ecosystem would support millions more jobs. The efficiency gains would justify the expenditures. The US economy will be made over by robots; we have the most efficient, large production economy on the planet, and are still the world's largest manufacturing nation (ahead of China, we export less). Our labor force participation rate has dropped from 67.5% in 1999/2000, down to 64% now; our U6 unemployment number is 15%. Millions of net job gains by taking manufacturing back from China, would not destroy many jobs at all (domestically), quite the opposite. Robots are amplifiers of human labor, not replacements. They still must be created, cared for, upgraded, overseen, and so on. The whole point is about one American with 30 robots to manage, becoming as labor efficient on price to output as 30 or more Chinese workers. The improvement scale in robotics is almost limitless; direct human labor however is extraordinarily limited in its capabilities. 5 million new jobs courtesy of taking manufacturing back from China would instantly push our labor force participation rate back up to where it was in 1999. While we'd simultaneously generate a massive pool of new domestic wealth by keeping that money here instead of sending it elsewhere for someone else to benefit from. We'd make more of the goods we consume; and we'd export more goods to the rest of the world. Competing with China is just one example, the reality is we'd want to look to create jobs by competing with everywhere we've lost manufacturing to since 1964 when America had 55% of all global manufacturing. And then let's remember that efficiency gains produce more wealth. Wealth is not a static pool to be swapped or stolen back and forth. Neither are jobs. It's entirely likely that we'll be able to create entirely new products that are now impossible courtesy of advanced robotic manufacturing, and that will mean completely new jobs, that would not have existed otherwise (versus say taking back old product manufacturing from China or similar).

samstave 15y ago

>Robots will, in the next few decades, wipe out all the labor benefit that China has. Not sure about this, however, China has been hedging against this as well. This is why they are securing all the natural resources in Africa. The US is SO fucking short sighted - while China has been thinking 50 to 100 years in advacne with respect to securing all the resources in Africa, the US believes it can just keep spending on a military that will be used to seize resources after political manipulations. The myopic view that the only resource that the US should be securing (oil in the mid east) is because the US' vision comes from greed-now viewpoint. (i.e. profit as much as possible on the near term, future be damned) There IS NO LONG TERM VISION in the US - from energy policy, tech, health etc. This is what is killing us.