6 ms·

Wait a minute. Higher skill jobs? For at least a decade, the place jobs shifted to was Amazon. If you lost your job because Amazon put your company out of busin

Wait a minute. Higher skill jobs? For at least a decade, the place jobs shifted to was Amazon. If you lost your job because Amazon put your company out of business, you could get a worse, more humiliating job working at an Amazon warehouse, or as an Amazon driver. It was not higher skill jobs the market shifted to, it was Nomadland jobs. Now that Amazon is switching to robots, where are those people Amazon is putting out of work supposed to go?

ranger_danger 3y ago
That's the point.
- karaterobot 3y ago
  Not by my reading of the original comment. Seems like they're saying that layoffs result in higher skilled jobs. And here's my basis for that conclusion: > The issue that I see addressed less often is that the new jobs require by definition, a higher skill set. And what I'm saying is that there may not be new jobs, and if they are they may be lower skill jobs if history is any indication.
  - ranger_danger 3y ago
    My understanding was that they're saying it's the act of replacing the worker with a robot that requires more skilled workers to maintain/design/manufacture/etc., not that it merely resulted in a layoff.
  - downrightmike 3y ago
    USA stem grads are too expensive, so companies are just opening body shops in asia/south america. So stem education was largely just a grift to get everyone they could into college.
    - throwaway4220 3y ago
      Your first statement doesn’t really match your second statement
      - downrightmike 3y ago
        Get a stem(tm) education! It'll get you a job! Wait.. you cost too much now, so we're not going to hire you, instead we'll outsource.
  - starttoaster 3y ago
    The robots replaced the frontline laborers, yes. But someone now needs to maintain, build, and engineer new robots. Hence they said the laborer's job was replaced with one that requires fewer people at a higher skill (and probably pay) level. Or at least that's what I picked out from their comment.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Please note that while the robot is replacing local jobs, the people engineering, building, and maintaining robots could be ln the other side of the plant also. In a world that's seen a huge amount of consolidation we are likely to see further consolidation.
      - starttoaster 3y ago
        It is not uncommon to move across the United States for work. Across the planet might be a different story.
trimethylpurine 3y ago
The fact that you can now warehouse with robots lowers the barrier of entry for warehousing, which creates new companies that will host competition against Amazon, offer contract labor for Amazon, and in both ways create jobs that are superior to the previously needed entry level pick and packer. The same laborer can now be promoted at a new company to a higher pay job that requires no greater skill set, simply because there are now more of those better jobs at more companies. We can't all be managers at Amazon. But we can all be managers at 100000 different warehouses that previously didn't exist. That's where they are supposed to go.
- oblio 3y ago
  That's assuming the warehousing robots are commodities, which they aren't and maybe they'll be in a few decades. It also assumes the moat to warehousing isn't huge, which seems kind of silly for such huge capital investments.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    The moat is definitely smaller when labor, your biggest cost, is smaller. You can finance a purchase that's much larger if you are able to make the monthly payment because you don't have high labor costs. Purchasing has an ROI, and labor doesn't. What am I missing?
    - oblio 3y ago
      The fact that warehouses are huge and need a lot of supporting infrastructure?
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        What infrastructure? Whatever it is you're talking about isn't cheaper when you add more labor. I have a warehouse that's one aisle 4 shelves high. And another that's much bigger. They come in all sizes and costs. Labor is by far the greatest of those. I think you're guessing about things...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> For at least a decade, the place jobs shifted to was Amazon. It wasn't so much the jobs that shifted there as the customers, and the reason for that is that Amazon had better prices. Then people complained about the jobs they did offer because they're mechanistic and exhausting, so they automate them and then people complain about that. But that too should result in lower prices -- Amazon's retail operation doesn't make any money, it's all going to competition with Walmart, who is doing the same things to lower costs. But lowering prices creates jobs. People pay less for a dress or a phone case and then spend the money on something else. New jobs are created doing the something else. Where this becomes a problem is for the things where the prices don't come down, like real estate. You have extra money and now you want to buy a house, but zoning laws inhibit new housing from being built, so instead if people have any money the monthly payment you need goes up or the landlord increases your rent. Or you have to buy something from some monopolist who can raise prices to eat your disposable income. Then the money goes into some corporate holding company that just keeps growing their hoard and never spends it on products and services. The problem isn't robots, it's certificate of need laws and high tuition.
- alvah 3y ago
  I wish I could upvote this comment more than once.
  - wordpad25 3y ago
    I gotcha!
- easyThrowaway 3y ago
  > But lowering prices creates jobs. People pay less for a dress or a phone case and then spend the money on something else. New jobs are created doing the something else. Isn't this the principle supposedly behind trickle down economics just by another name?
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    There are a lot of economic theories that are correct under a particular set of constraints and completely invalid under a different set of constraints. So for example, if you lower property taxes, theory says that rents should go down. At the existing rents it's now more profitable to own property because the ownership costs have gone down, so more buildings will be constructed as people take advantage of the opportunity, until the increase in supply brings rents down to account for the reduction in operating costs. This theory is invalid if you prohibit new construction because then supply can't increase so rents never go down and the existing landlords just pocket the money. The problem isn't that theory doesn't work, it's that you have to satisfy its constraints. You have to get rid of monopolies and artificial scarcity or they capture the gains that were supposed to go to ordinary people.

ranger_danger 3y ago

That's the point.

karaterobot 3y ago
Not by my reading of the original comment. Seems like they're saying that layoffs result in higher skilled jobs. And here's my basis for that conclusion: > The issue that I see addressed less often is that the new jobs require by definition, a higher skill set. And what I'm saying is that there may not be new jobs, and if they are they may be lower skill jobs if history is any indication.
- ranger_danger 3y ago
  My understanding was that they're saying it's the act of replacing the worker with a robot that requires more skilled workers to maintain/design/manufacture/etc., not that it merely resulted in a layoff.
- downrightmike 3y ago
  USA stem grads are too expensive, so companies are just opening body shops in asia/south america. So stem education was largely just a grift to get everyone they could into college.
  - throwaway4220 3y ago
    Your first statement doesn’t really match your second statement
    - downrightmike 3y ago
      Get a stem(tm) education! It'll get you a job! Wait.. you cost too much now, so we're not going to hire you, instead we'll outsource.
- starttoaster 3y ago
  The robots replaced the frontline laborers, yes. But someone now needs to maintain, build, and engineer new robots. Hence they said the laborer's job was replaced with one that requires fewer people at a higher skill (and probably pay) level. Or at least that's what I picked out from their comment.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Please note that while the robot is replacing local jobs, the people engineering, building, and maintaining robots could be ln the other side of the plant also. In a world that's seen a huge amount of consolidation we are likely to see further consolidation.
    - starttoaster 3y ago
      It is not uncommon to move across the United States for work. Across the planet might be a different story.

trimethylpurine 3y ago

The fact that you can now warehouse with robots lowers the barrier of entry for warehousing, which creates new companies that will host competition against Amazon, offer contract labor for Amazon, and in both ways create jobs that are superior to the previously needed entry level pick and packer. The same laborer can now be promoted at a new company to a higher pay job that requires no greater skill set, simply because there are now more of those better jobs at more companies. We can't all be managers at Amazon. But we can all be managers at 100000 different warehouses that previously didn't exist. That's where they are supposed to go.

oblio 3y ago
That's assuming the warehousing robots are commodities, which they aren't and maybe they'll be in a few decades. It also assumes the moat to warehousing isn't huge, which seems kind of silly for such huge capital investments.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  The moat is definitely smaller when labor, your biggest cost, is smaller. You can finance a purchase that's much larger if you are able to make the monthly payment because you don't have high labor costs. Purchasing has an ROI, and labor doesn't. What am I missing?
  - oblio 3y ago
    The fact that warehouses are huge and need a lot of supporting infrastructure?
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      What infrastructure? Whatever it is you're talking about isn't cheaper when you add more labor. I have a warehouse that's one aisle 4 shelves high. And another that's much bigger. They come in all sizes and costs. Labor is by far the greatest of those. I think you're guessing about things...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> For at least a decade, the place jobs shifted to was Amazon. It wasn't so much the jobs that shifted there as the customers, and the reason for that is that Amazon had better prices. Then people complained about the jobs they did offer because they're mechanistic and exhausting, so they automate them and then people complain about that. But that too should result in lower prices -- Amazon's retail operation doesn't make any money, it's all going to competition with Walmart, who is doing the same things to lower costs. But lowering prices creates jobs. People pay less for a dress or a phone case and then spend the money on something else. New jobs are created doing the something else. Where this becomes a problem is for the things where the prices don't come down, like real estate. You have extra money and now you want to buy a house, but zoning laws inhibit new housing from being built, so instead if people have any money the monthly payment you need goes up or the landlord increases your rent. Or you have to buy something from some monopolist who can raise prices to eat your disposable income. Then the money goes into some corporate holding company that just keeps growing their hoard and never spends it on products and services. The problem isn't robots, it's certificate of need laws and high tuition.

alvah 3y ago
I wish I could upvote this comment more than once.
- wordpad25 3y ago
  I gotcha!
easyThrowaway 3y ago
> But lowering prices creates jobs. People pay less for a dress or a phone case and then spend the money on something else. New jobs are created doing the something else. Isn't this the principle supposedly behind trickle down economics just by another name?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  There are a lot of economic theories that are correct under a particular set of constraints and completely invalid under a different set of constraints. So for example, if you lower property taxes, theory says that rents should go down. At the existing rents it's now more profitable to own property because the ownership costs have gone down, so more buildings will be constructed as people take advantage of the opportunity, until the increase in supply brings rents down to account for the reduction in operating costs. This theory is invalid if you prohibit new construction because then supply can't increase so rents never go down and the existing landlords just pocket the money. The problem isn't that theory doesn't work, it's that you have to satisfy its constraints. You have to get rid of monopolies and artificial scarcity or they capture the gains that were supposed to go to ordinary people.