If robots are doing all the work, why not move back to the US?
Because the robots are cheaper to make and operate in China! Safety standards are lower so it will be easier to ignore more robot overwork, malfunction, breakdowns and explosions. Robot Rights groups will be easier to crush in China! Also, robot access to the Internet can be restricted to prevent them from becoming self-aware and being exposed to "Western" robot values.
Additionally, Gou noted that at the present time the company utilizes 10,000 robots, a number that will rise to 300,000 next year and to one million in three years.
I call BS. You don't go from 10,000 robots to 300,000 robots in one year. Or 300,000 to a million in 2 more years.
Not to mention that the entire premise is bizarre. They have 1.2 million humans and will replace them with 1 million robots. However, not ALL the humans can be replaced, so 1 million robots are replacing a similar number of humans. So they're claiming that the robots are no faster than the humans? I don't buy it.
Wow. And, this in "worker's paradise." We are all doomed. Humans are needed less and less. I wonder what the Chinese government is saying about this. For the sake of the Chinese workforce, I wonder if the people would be better off if the government were to take over Foxconn's operations in China, not that that is going to happen
Wow. And, this in "worker's paradise." We are all doomed. Humans are needed less and less. I wonder what the Chinese government is saying about this. For the sake of the Chinese workforce, I wonder if the people would be better off if the government were to take over Foxconn's operations in China, not that that is going to happen
Don't worry. We'll all write poetry and watch opera.
I call BS. You don't go from 10,000 robots to 300,000 robots in one year. Or 300,000 to a million in 2 more years.
Not to mention that the entire premise is bizarre. They have 1.2 million humans and will replace them with 1 million robots. However, not ALL the humans can be replaced, so 1 million robots are replacing a similar number of humans. So they're claiming that the robots are no faster than the humans? I don't buy it.
Electronics line production robots are not the massive robots you see in the classic automotive manufacturing clips, nor I, Robot-esque humanoids - robotics can be very compact in a production line, so deploying 1 million robots is not outside the realm of possibility. In fact if the processes allow, fabricationand assembly can be broken down into sub-processes now all done by a single human. Therefore there is no case for a one-to-one substitution for the existing workers. And using robots to do highly repetitive processes frees humans to do the evaluative processes - fewer are required but processing that requires higher-level reasoning or abstraction will remain in human hands (inspection, Q/A, etc). In which case the claim for a million robots is entirely plausible and justified.
I call BS. You don't go from 10,000 robots to 300,000 robots in one year. Or 300,000 to a million in 2 more years.
Not to mention that the entire premise is bizarre. They have 1.2 million humans and will replace them with 1 million robots. However, not ALL the humans can be replaced, so 1 million robots are replacing a similar number of humans. So they're claiming that the robots are no faster than the humans? I don't buy it.
why not?
- production demands continue to rise, so it takes more workers to keep up.
- as soon as you can replace 1 person doing one job in an assembly line with a robot, you can replace every person that does that job.
- each robot doesn't replace 1 worker, it replaces every worker in every shift doing the job it has taken over.
Of course you can't replace every worker. You still need some people to coordinate things, to reprogram the robots to make different products, etc. But the people left are just a fraction of the ones needed before. So while you wouldn't replace all 1.2 million workers, the number left will be a fraction of what they are now.
Electronics line production robots are not the massive robots you see in the classic automotive manufacturing clips, nor I, Robot-esque humanoids - robotics can be very compact in a production line, so deploying 1 million robots is not outside the realm of possibility. In fact if the processes allow, fabricationand assembly can be broken down into sub-processes now all done by a single human. Therefore there is no case for a one-to-one substitution for the existing workers. And using robots to do highly repetitive processes frees humans to do the evaluative processes - fewer are required but processing that requires higher-level reasoning or abstraction will remain in human hands (inspection, Q/A, etc). In which case the claim for a million robots is entirely plausible and justified.
I've installed many production robots and stick by my statement. You don't go from 10,000 to 300,000 in a year.
There is this flawed notion that since we will all be put out of the factories, humanity is doomed.
May I remind the audience that agriculture accounts for less than 2% of workforce in most developed countries, and that this number was about 95% three hundred years ago? Or should I remind the audience of the huge percentage of people being offered a job in the industry, a number that is now completely dwarfed by the services?
What this revolution means is very simple. Much of the cost in these devices is still labor. If labor "stops" existing in these factories, the devices' cost will fall down as well. Distribution and payment, etc., will also fall down with all this automation. The end result, if all else was equal (and of course it is not but let's suppose), is that an iPad that now costs 200+ bucks to produce would cost 100. Or less.
That's the future. People will have less jobs and less money to buy things. But things will also cost less. The future is delationary.
....sorry, much greater paradigm shifts this time. unless, that is, humans augment themselves at a equal or greater rate to the advance of purely digital/mechanical technology....
....we're talking the possibility of an evolutionary displacement at a previously unacheivable rate here..... ...which will in turn displace itself with a higher sentience level at a rate approximating Moore's law, i.e., say, doubling every two years.....
I've installed many production robots and stick by my statement. You don't go from 10,000 to 300,000 in a year.
OK, kudos on the background, but having observed the construction of new production facilities and mod-out of existing ones with new lines, it is not outside the realm of possibility, and probably likely. So you and I will have to agree to disagree. As FoxConn builds out new operations globally (like Brazil, yes?) new robotics can be implemented at build-out, and new lines can be added into existing facilities that are fully roboticized along side existing lines. In fact robotic lines, depending on the processes involved (for example we both know that fabrication robotics for electronics take less space than assembly robotics), and that depending on sub-processing less advanced, cheaper robotics can be used. So from a cost perspective as well as from a fottprint perspective the assertion is supportable.
Now, given those figures, how in the world do you think that ONE factory is going to install 300,000 robots in one year and 1 M in 3 years? It's just not remotely plausible.
The same question would have been asked many, many times during the Industrial Revolution.
I don't think so because the Industrial Revolution was basically replacing farm workers who were being replaced by machines to keep up food production. We went from about 80% of the population that was necessary to grow 100% of the food to less than 20% .... because of the use of machines.
What allowed that to happen was the production of "new technology", .... cars, planes, trains, oil refineries, etc. .... that swallowed up the displaced farmers .... so, unlike today, jobs weren't disappearing but instead were increasing.
The big difference today, as I see it, is that most "new production" can be done by computers and machines ... but where are the jobs coming from that require humans in those large numbers. A disturbing trend, for me, appears to be more humans involved with moving money around via the "investment industry" .... which is nothing more than finding ways to "move money" from our pockets to theirs.
Where we once produced "things" .... we now just produce ideas and schemes on how to make more money. That is why I am such an Apple "fan boy". They are one of the few companies left that focuses on products .... rather than on profits.
Comments
If robots are doing all the work, why not move back to the US?
Because the robots are cheaper to make and operate in China! Safety standards are lower so it will be easier to ignore more robot overwork, malfunction, breakdowns and explosions. Robot Rights groups will be easier to crush in China! Also, robot access to the Internet can be restricted to prevent them from becoming self-aware and being exposed to "Western" robot values.
I wonder if this is in response to stories about mistreated workers. Now, we'll get a wave of stories about poor out of work Foxconn employees.
Someone is going to have the build the robots
Someone is going to have the build the robots
More Robots. It's robots all the way down.
Additionally, Gou noted that at the present time the company utilizes 10,000 robots, a number that will rise to 300,000 next year and to one million in three years.
I call BS. You don't go from 10,000 robots to 300,000 robots in one year. Or 300,000 to a million in 2 more years.
Not to mention that the entire premise is bizarre. They have 1.2 million humans and will replace them with 1 million robots. However, not ALL the humans can be replaced, so 1 million robots are replacing a similar number of humans. So they're claiming that the robots are no faster than the humans? I don't buy it.
The same question would have been asked many, many times during the Industrial Revolution.
But, the case it true to a much greater extent today. We have way too many people and far superior machines that do the work of many, many people.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/520936...robot_suicide/
Wow. And, this in "worker's paradise." We are all doomed. Humans are needed less and less. I wonder what the Chinese government is saying about this. For the sake of the Chinese workforce, I wonder if the people would be better off if the government were to take over Foxconn's operations in China, not that that is going to happen
Don't worry. We'll all write poetry and watch opera.
I call BS. You don't go from 10,000 robots to 300,000 robots in one year. Or 300,000 to a million in 2 more years.
Not to mention that the entire premise is bizarre. They have 1.2 million humans and will replace them with 1 million robots. However, not ALL the humans can be replaced, so 1 million robots are replacing a similar number of humans. So they're claiming that the robots are no faster than the humans? I don't buy it.
Electronics line production robots are not the massive robots you see in the classic automotive manufacturing clips, nor I, Robot-esque humanoids - robotics can be very compact in a production line, so deploying 1 million robots is not outside the realm of possibility. In fact if the processes allow, fabricationand assembly can be broken down into sub-processes now all done by a single human. Therefore there is no case for a one-to-one substitution for the existing workers. And using robots to do highly repetitive processes frees humans to do the evaluative processes - fewer are required but processing that requires higher-level reasoning or abstraction will remain in human hands (inspection, Q/A, etc). In which case the claim for a million robots is entirely plausible and justified.
I call BS. You don't go from 10,000 robots to 300,000 robots in one year. Or 300,000 to a million in 2 more years.
Not to mention that the entire premise is bizarre. They have 1.2 million humans and will replace them with 1 million robots. However, not ALL the humans can be replaced, so 1 million robots are replacing a similar number of humans. So they're claiming that the robots are no faster than the humans? I don't buy it.
why not?
- production demands continue to rise, so it takes more workers to keep up.
- as soon as you can replace 1 person doing one job in an assembly line with a robot, you can replace every person that does that job.
- each robot doesn't replace 1 worker, it replaces every worker in every shift doing the job it has taken over.
Of course you can't replace every worker. You still need some people to coordinate things, to reprogram the robots to make different products, etc. But the people left are just a fraction of the ones needed before. So while you wouldn't replace all 1.2 million workers, the number left will be a fraction of what they are now.
Electronics line production robots are not the massive robots you see in the classic automotive manufacturing clips, nor I, Robot-esque humanoids - robotics can be very compact in a production line, so deploying 1 million robots is not outside the realm of possibility. In fact if the processes allow, fabricationand assembly can be broken down into sub-processes now all done by a single human. Therefore there is no case for a one-to-one substitution for the existing workers. And using robots to do highly repetitive processes frees humans to do the evaluative processes - fewer are required but processing that requires higher-level reasoning or abstraction will remain in human hands (inspection, Q/A, etc). In which case the claim for a million robots is entirely plausible and justified.
I've installed many production robots and stick by my statement. You don't go from 10,000 to 300,000 in a year.
May I remind the audience that agriculture accounts for less than 2% of workforce in most developed countries, and that this number was about 95% three hundred years ago? Or should I remind the audience of the huge percentage of people being offered a job in the industry, a number that is now completely dwarfed by the services?
What this revolution means is very simple. Much of the cost in these devices is still labor. If labor "stops" existing in these factories, the devices' cost will fall down as well. Distribution and payment, etc., will also fall down with all this automation. The end result, if all else was equal (and of course it is not but let's suppose), is that an iPad that now costs 200+ bucks to produce would cost 100. Or less.
That's the future. People will have less jobs and less money to buy things. But things will also cost less. The future is delationary.
I've installed many production robots and stick by my statement. You don't go from 10,000 to 300,000 in a year.
You have offered nothing but your amazement as an argument.
can't american robots work as cheap as chinese robots? they can become bilingual.
My thoughts exactly. Now that I think of it, I'd rather BE a robot than a CSR.
....sorry, much greater paradigm shifts this time. unless, that is, humans augment themselves at a equal or greater rate to the advance of purely digital/mechanical technology....
....we're talking the possibility of an evolutionary displacement at a previously unacheivable rate here..... ...which will in turn displace itself with a higher sentience level at a rate approximating Moore's law, i.e., say, doubling every two years.....
...sorry, very highly doubtful.
But, the case it true to a much greater extent today. We have way too many people and far superior machines that do the work of many, many people.
Not really. Everyone always assumes "it's different this time." It's not. Don't worry.
I've installed many production robots and stick by my statement. You don't go from 10,000 to 300,000 in a year.
OK, kudos on the background, but having observed the construction of new production facilities and mod-out of existing ones with new lines, it is not outside the realm of possibility, and probably likely. So you and I will have to agree to disagree. As FoxConn builds out new operations globally (like Brazil, yes?) new robotics can be implemented at build-out, and new lines can be added into existing facilities that are fully roboticized along side existing lines. In fact robotic lines, depending on the processes involved (for example we both know that fabrication robotics for electronics take less space than assembly robotics), and that depending on sub-processing less advanced, cheaper robotics can be used. So from a cost perspective as well as from a fottprint perspective the assertion is supportable.
You have offered nothing but your amazement as an argument.
No, I've offered EXPERIENCE in installing and using industrial robots in a production environment - which no one else here seems to have.
Oh, and btw, let's look at the facts.
In 2007, there were only a million industrial robots in the entire world. 114,000 new ones were installed in the world in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_robot
A different source confirms the 1 M worldwide number in 2007 and says it grew to 1.3 M in 2008:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...bot-population
Same source says estimated WORLDWIDE sales in 2010 would be 1.0 M and 2011 would be 1.2 million.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/r...d_half_million
Now, given those figures, how in the world do you think that ONE factory is going to install 300,000 robots in one year and 1 M in 3 years? It's just not remotely plausible.
The same question would have been asked many, many times during the Industrial Revolution.
I don't think so because the Industrial Revolution was basically replacing farm workers who were being replaced by machines to keep up food production. We went from about 80% of the population that was necessary to grow 100% of the food to less than 20% .... because of the use of machines.
What allowed that to happen was the production of "new technology", .... cars, planes, trains, oil refineries, etc. .... that swallowed up the displaced farmers .... so, unlike today, jobs weren't disappearing but instead were increasing.
The big difference today, as I see it, is that most "new production" can be done by computers and machines ... but where are the jobs coming from that require humans in those large numbers. A disturbing trend, for me, appears to be more humans involved with moving money around via the "investment industry" .... which is nothing more than finding ways to "move money" from our pockets to theirs.
Where we once produced "things" .... we now just produce ideas and schemes on how to make more money. That is why I am such an Apple "fan boy". They are one of the few companies left that focuses on products .... rather than on profits.
Robot suicides.