8 ms·

First robots have arrived in plan to replace 1 million Foxconn workers

94 points by Reltair 14y ago

islon 14y ago
I guess we'll see an increase in robot suicide rates.
- Drakim 14y ago
  Putting up some safety nets isn't going to cut it this time, I suspect.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  If the rate is anything like that of computers or other complex technical gear, they will need plenty of engineers. Nowhere near the number of people they are replacing on the production lines, but still not an insignificant number.
  - moe 14y ago
    but still not an insignificant number. I doubt that. You need humans to construct and program robots. There is no reason why you'd need humans to maintain and repair robots. For a (slightly contrived) analogy you could look at modern farming or datacenters. It's not uncommon for a modern farm with thousands of cattle to be run by a work force smaller than 30 people. The same is true for datacenters that house ten thousands units of rather complex machinery. In purely manual labor (assembly lines) a 1000:1 workforce-reduction doesn't seem unlikely.
agumonkey 14y ago
Anyone else is happy about that ? When everything will be done by machines we will have to think about what it means to exist in this world without being a little hand.
- aplusbi 14y ago
  'The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question "How can we eat?" the second by the question "Why do we eat?" and the third by the question "Where shall we have lunch?"' - Douglas Adams
- rasur 14y ago
  I think it's a massive win for everybody concerned, given the prevailing work conditions the workers had to suffer.
  - miahi 14y ago
    On the other hand, they were paid. Hard work trumps having nothing to eat.
    - mburns 14y ago
      That just means we need robots to harvest food, too.
      - jbigelow76 14y ago
        Just because the food is available doesn't necessarily mean the producers will be willing to give it to those without means to pay for it.
        TheGateKeeper 14y ago
        Maybe not, but enough to keep their robots in repair and enough for themselves who own them to have a home/food of their own wouldn't go amiss.
        pgeorgi 14y ago
        Nothing that couldn't be fixed with some carefully applied lethal force (cf. french revolution).
chubbard 14y ago
So if the Chinese are just replacing people with robots why can't America, or really any nation, do that now? Or why didn't they do that sooner? If we want to bring back manufacturing why not start with robots? It might not bring back the mass amount of jobs, but it will bring back more exports and stabilize the trade deficit. The robot repairmen will stay busy that's for sure.
- mmanfrin 14y ago
  Supply chain. We can't just have a phone factory, we need the factories that make all the parts that go in it. Incidentally, this was why the auto bailout was such a big deal -- it was not about protecting the car companies, but protecting the industry around it.
- bunderbunder 14y ago
  There's no need to "bring back manufacturing". China didn't pass the USA as the world's largest producer of manufactured goods until last year. And contrary to popular belief, the reason why the USA shed so many manufacturing jobs over the previous few decades has little to do with Chinese competition, and a whole lot to do with the USA's rapid adoption of robotics in factories. The real causes for the USA's trade deficit have less to do with its ability to manufacture goods and more to do with macroeconomic conditions such as its strong currency, relatively low domestic savings rate, and relatively high rate of foreign investment. Theoretically, it should eventually sort itself out due to normal market forces. For example, domestic savings should increase and foreign investment should decrease as Americans begin to quit living on credit and start refilling their bank accounts. Incidentally, this sort of thing happened a few years ago, and was accompanied by a huge drop in the size of the trade deficit.
  - mr_luc 14y ago
    I was hoping to see someone mention this, because there's a great conversation that we're not having because of the lack of awareness of the extent of automation and even lights-out machining. There was a wonderful article on lights-out machining in the States that I found thanks to HN - sorry I don't have the link - but which mentioned that manufacturing in the States grew by a third since 2000, while jobs were slashed. That really complicates the conversation. Lots of people seem to implicitly assume that by giving companies incentives to manufacture here, we can solve the employment problem. Um ... nowadays, there are manufacturing jobs that require knowledge of CNC machines and maybe even programming and/or metallurgy. Skilled stuff. I want to know: now that we don't have the easy fix that 'wet robot' jobs gave us, are jobs on the whole being created or destroyed in high-tech societies? Even assuming people can be given technical skills in the numbers that they'd need, the openings for skilled technical work hardly seems sufficient for the masses of people being made redundant. I feel like a Luddite even typing that.
ynniv 14y ago
According to the article that is 83.3% of their workforce that will no longer need to be paid. It will take about three years to recoup costs, which means more profit for Foxconn and Apple and more subsistence farming for previously Foxconn employed Chinese peasants. Labor Problem Solved™!
angkec 14y ago
Personally I think this will generate some social unrest in my hometown where foxconn has a factory. Those robots will drive millions of young workforces out of a basic job. I'm pretty concerned about the near future. In the long term though, this seems to be the only way to go: automate boring jobs.
- richardw 14y ago
  From the perspective of the owner, the social unrest is a temporary problem. As robots take over jobs, the potential for social unrest in the future reduces. Bosses don't have to worry about wage demands, housing, transport, kids, strikes etc. They're unfortunately not focused on automating boring jobs, which would at least have some benefit for the worker. They're reducing variability and the need to negotiate with humans. How long before the next jobs are eliminated, then middle management jobs, then everyone except those who own the robots? In my country we've had miners striking, demanding pretty large increases. My default answer has been to automate the lot and put robots underground, but on the other hand...
  - pretoriusB 14y ago
    >From the perspective of the owner, the social unrest is a temporary problem. As robots take over jobs, the potential for social unrest in the future reduces. Bosses don't have to worry about wage demands, housing, transport, kids, strikes etc. That's not how it works. You're thinking it of the perspective of the factory owner, not the overall society. In fact, the potential of social unrest in the future increases: all those people, brought over from their villages and left unemployed in the big city, with wages for unskilled labor going down (due to even less demand after the automation of most jobs), and no future, will not end well. >In my country we've had miners striking, demanding pretty large increases. My default answer has been to automate the lot and put robots underground, but on the other hand... But on the other hand, we have (as a society) exploited the work of those workers at the time that the job could not be automated (which is still the case today mostly), while paying them less that it's worth it. "You'll work for a pittance, and if you argue about it, we will force you to using the police instead of negotiating better wages." And that in an extremely harsh job, where a huge percentage of miners dies of cancer.
ilaksh 14y ago
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
hnriot 14y ago
Does this mean the robots can be installed in the US and we made iPhones and iPads here in the US, at least the robot service jobs will be local.
- grecy 14y ago
  I imagine said company would then have to contend with getting the raw materials into the US (or buying them in the US at US market rates), US environmental laws, US electricity prices and US rates for "robot service jobs". Of course, they would save on shipping the finished products..
- snuze 14y ago
  As far as I understand it, China currently has a monopoly on rare earth minerals: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/06/08/rare-earth-minerals-an-end-to-chinas-monopoly-is-in-sight/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/06/08/rare-earth...
  - ImprovedSilence 14y ago
    Actually the US has a pretty fantastic supply of rare earths. the US used to mine a TON, then imports from China got cheaper, so they stopped mining domestically. In this process, lots of "knowledge capital" was lost, but we still have vast reserves of rare earths. The big problem now is the lack of infrastructure to get at them again.
bglusman 14y ago
I submitted a story last week I was a little disappointed got no comments or upvotes, but if this (http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/11/06/evil-high-speed-robot-hand-proves-humans-doomed-to-be-servants-to-our-coming-borg-overlords/?fromcat=shareables http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/11/06/evil-high-speed-...) is what robots in labs can do no, then things will continue to be exciting and interesting as these technologies get commercialized, become hackable and find new uses.... what COULDN'T robotics like this be used for? (that link was the one I submitted if that wasn't clear)
- thomaslutz 14y ago
  This video is about 3 years old. We should have advanced by now.
- CodeCube 14y ago
  Ahh, I remember seeing this video back when it first surfaced. One of my favorite comments I saw somewhere (maybe slashdot?) was that robotic capability is usually insufficient for something like dribbling a ping pong ball ... until it isn't, at which point it can do it hundreds of times a second flawlessly. I'm sure I've paraphrased quite liberally with the comment, but hopefully the intent stands. With sufficient engineering we should be capable of many many things quite soon.
Symmetry 14y ago
Ultimately all progress in human material conditions comes from "eliminating jobs". Back In The Day it took 80% of the US population just to keep everyone fed. When tractors came along most of the population went into manufacturing, and with robots people go into services. You can't have more stuff without finding ways to produce the current level of stuff with less people.
- kamaal 14y ago
  >>Ultimately all progress in human material conditions comes from "eliminating jobs". I think it should rather be eliminating the need to work for things like food, clothing, medicine and shelter. As automation increases by multiple folds, I see this as a inevitable fallout. Needing to have a job to even survive might not even be relevant as concept in the future.
  - polarix 14y ago
    Needing to have a job to even survive must not be relevant in the future.
- jb17 14y ago
  I agree with your main observation, but don't forget that 'jobs' in the sense of selling yourself to pay for your basic survival needs (and maybe a bit more) are historically a fairly recent phenomenon. The negative connotations that come with 'eliminating jobs' all have to do with that. I think that automation could play an important part in a post-capitalist society.
  - chad_oliver 14y ago
    I'm not sure I understand you. "Selling yourself to pay for your basic survival needs ... [is] a fairly recent phenomenon" seems pretty clear cut, but surely you're not trying to claim that jobs are more onerous today than they were in the past? Peasants in Sumer were working far harder than the average westerner today, and their effort only bought them their basic survival needs (with none to spare).
- 14y ago
jobigoud 14y ago
"these robots are manufactured in house" Wow, that's just… mean. Being tasked with building the machine that will put you out of job.

94 points by Reltair 14y ago

islon 14y ago

I guess we'll see an increase in robot suicide rates.

Drakim 14y ago
Putting up some safety nets isn't going to cut it this time, I suspect.
lostlogin 14y ago
If the rate is anything like that of computers or other complex technical gear, they will need plenty of engineers. Nowhere near the number of people they are replacing on the production lines, but still not an insignificant number.
- moe 14y ago
  but still not an insignificant number. I doubt that. You need humans to construct and program robots. There is no reason why you'd need humans to maintain and repair robots. For a (slightly contrived) analogy you could look at modern farming or datacenters. It's not uncommon for a modern farm with thousands of cattle to be run by a work force smaller than 30 people. The same is true for datacenters that house ten thousands units of rather complex machinery. In purely manual labor (assembly lines) a 1000:1 workforce-reduction doesn't seem unlikely.

agumonkey 14y ago

Anyone else is happy about that ? When everything will be done by machines we will have to think about what it means to exist in this world without being a little hand.

aplusbi 14y ago
'The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question "How can we eat?" the second by the question "Why do we eat?" and the third by the question "Where shall we have lunch?"' - Douglas Adams
rasur 14y ago
I think it's a massive win for everybody concerned, given the prevailing work conditions the workers had to suffer.
- miahi 14y ago
  On the other hand, they were paid. Hard work trumps having nothing to eat.
  - mburns 14y ago
    That just means we need robots to harvest food, too.
    - jbigelow76 14y ago
      Just because the food is available doesn't necessarily mean the producers will be willing to give it to those without means to pay for it.
      - TheGateKeeper 14y ago
        Maybe not, but enough to keep their robots in repair and enough for themselves who own them to have a home/food of their own wouldn't go amiss.
      - pgeorgi 14y ago
        Nothing that couldn't be fixed with some carefully applied lethal force (cf. french revolution).

chubbard 14y ago

So if the Chinese are just replacing people with robots why can't America, or really any nation, do that now? Or why didn't they do that sooner? If we want to bring back manufacturing why not start with robots? It might not bring back the mass amount of jobs, but it will bring back more exports and stabilize the trade deficit. The robot repairmen will stay busy that's for sure.

mmanfrin 14y ago
Supply chain. We can't just have a phone factory, we need the factories that make all the parts that go in it. Incidentally, this was why the auto bailout was such a big deal -- it was not about protecting the car companies, but protecting the industry around it.
bunderbunder 14y ago
There's no need to "bring back manufacturing". China didn't pass the USA as the world's largest producer of manufactured goods until last year. And contrary to popular belief, the reason why the USA shed so many manufacturing jobs over the previous few decades has little to do with Chinese competition, and a whole lot to do with the USA's rapid adoption of robotics in factories. The real causes for the USA's trade deficit have less to do with its ability to manufacture goods and more to do with macroeconomic conditions such as its strong currency, relatively low domestic savings rate, and relatively high rate of foreign investment. Theoretically, it should eventually sort itself out due to normal market forces. For example, domestic savings should increase and foreign investment should decrease as Americans begin to quit living on credit and start refilling their bank accounts. Incidentally, this sort of thing happened a few years ago, and was accompanied by a huge drop in the size of the trade deficit.
- mr_luc 14y ago
  I was hoping to see someone mention this, because there's a great conversation that we're not having because of the lack of awareness of the extent of automation and even lights-out machining. There was a wonderful article on lights-out machining in the States that I found thanks to HN - sorry I don't have the link - but which mentioned that manufacturing in the States grew by a third since 2000, while jobs were slashed. That really complicates the conversation. Lots of people seem to implicitly assume that by giving companies incentives to manufacture here, we can solve the employment problem. Um ... nowadays, there are manufacturing jobs that require knowledge of CNC machines and maybe even programming and/or metallurgy. Skilled stuff. I want to know: now that we don't have the easy fix that 'wet robot' jobs gave us, are jobs on the whole being created or destroyed in high-tech societies? Even assuming people can be given technical skills in the numbers that they'd need, the openings for skilled technical work hardly seems sufficient for the masses of people being made redundant. I feel like a Luddite even typing that.

ynniv 14y ago

According to the article that is 83.3% of their workforce that will no longer need to be paid. It will take about three years to recoup costs, which means more profit for Foxconn and Apple and more subsistence farming for previously Foxconn employed Chinese peasants. Labor Problem Solved™!

angkec 14y ago

Personally I think this will generate some social unrest in my hometown where foxconn has a factory. Those robots will drive millions of young workforces out of a basic job. I'm pretty concerned about the near future. In the long term though, this seems to be the only way to go: automate boring jobs.

richardw 14y ago
From the perspective of the owner, the social unrest is a temporary problem. As robots take over jobs, the potential for social unrest in the future reduces. Bosses don't have to worry about wage demands, housing, transport, kids, strikes etc. They're unfortunately not focused on automating boring jobs, which would at least have some benefit for the worker. They're reducing variability and the need to negotiate with humans. How long before the next jobs are eliminated, then middle management jobs, then everyone except those who own the robots? In my country we've had miners striking, demanding pretty large increases. My default answer has been to automate the lot and put robots underground, but on the other hand...
- pretoriusB 14y ago
  >From the perspective of the owner, the social unrest is a temporary problem. As robots take over jobs, the potential for social unrest in the future reduces. Bosses don't have to worry about wage demands, housing, transport, kids, strikes etc. That's not how it works. You're thinking it of the perspective of the factory owner, not the overall society. In fact, the potential of social unrest in the future increases: all those people, brought over from their villages and left unemployed in the big city, with wages for unskilled labor going down (due to even less demand after the automation of most jobs), and no future, will not end well. >In my country we've had miners striking, demanding pretty large increases. My default answer has been to automate the lot and put robots underground, but on the other hand... But on the other hand, we have (as a society) exploited the work of those workers at the time that the job could not be automated (which is still the case today mostly), while paying them less that it's worth it. "You'll work for a pittance, and if you argue about it, we will force you to using the police instead of negotiating better wages." And that in an extremely harsh job, where a huge percentage of miners dies of cancer.

ilaksh 14y ago

http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

hnriot 14y ago

Does this mean the robots can be installed in the US and we made iPhones and iPads here in the US, at least the robot service jobs will be local.

grecy 14y ago
I imagine said company would then have to contend with getting the raw materials into the US (or buying them in the US at US market rates), US environmental laws, US electricity prices and US rates for "robot service jobs". Of course, they would save on shipping the finished products..
snuze 14y ago
As far as I understand it, China currently has a monopoly on rare earth minerals: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/06/08/rare-earth-minerals-an-end-to-chinas-monopoly-is-in-sight/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/06/08/rare-earth...
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  Actually the US has a pretty fantastic supply of rare earths. the US used to mine a TON, then imports from China got cheaper, so they stopped mining domestically. In this process, lots of "knowledge capital" was lost, but we still have vast reserves of rare earths. The big problem now is the lack of infrastructure to get at them again.

bglusman 14y ago

I submitted a story last week I was a little disappointed got no comments or upvotes, but if this (http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/11/06/evil-high-speed-robot-hand-proves-humans-doomed-to-be-servants-to-our-coming-borg-overlords/?fromcat=shareables http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2012/11/06/evil-high-speed-...) is what robots in labs can do no, then things will continue to be exciting and interesting as these technologies get commercialized, become hackable and find new uses.... what COULDN'T robotics like this be used for? (that link was the one I submitted if that wasn't clear)

thomaslutz 14y ago
This video is about 3 years old. We should have advanced by now.
CodeCube 14y ago
Ahh, I remember seeing this video back when it first surfaced. One of my favorite comments I saw somewhere (maybe slashdot?) was that robotic capability is usually insufficient for something like dribbling a ping pong ball ... until it isn't, at which point it can do it hundreds of times a second flawlessly. I'm sure I've paraphrased quite liberally with the comment, but hopefully the intent stands. With sufficient engineering we should be capable of many many things quite soon.

Symmetry 14y ago

Ultimately all progress in human material conditions comes from "eliminating jobs". Back In The Day it took 80% of the US population just to keep everyone fed. When tractors came along most of the population went into manufacturing, and with robots people go into services. You can't have more stuff without finding ways to produce the current level of stuff with less people.

kamaal 14y ago
>>Ultimately all progress in human material conditions comes from "eliminating jobs". I think it should rather be eliminating the need to work for things like food, clothing, medicine and shelter. As automation increases by multiple folds, I see this as a inevitable fallout. Needing to have a job to even survive might not even be relevant as concept in the future.
- polarix 14y ago
  Needing to have a job to even survive must not be relevant in the future.
jb17 14y ago
I agree with your main observation, but don't forget that 'jobs' in the sense of selling yourself to pay for your basic survival needs (and maybe a bit more) are historically a fairly recent phenomenon. The negative connotations that come with 'eliminating jobs' all have to do with that. I think that automation could play an important part in a post-capitalist society.
- chad_oliver 14y ago
  I'm not sure I understand you. "Selling yourself to pay for your basic survival needs ... [is] a fairly recent phenomenon" seems pretty clear cut, but surely you're not trying to claim that jobs are more onerous today than they were in the past? Peasants in Sumer were working far harder than the average westerner today, and their effort only bought them their basic survival needs (with none to spare).
14y ago

jobigoud 14y ago

"these robots are manufactured in house" Wow, that's just… mean. Being tasked with building the machine that will put you out of job.