Manufacturing Jobs Aren’t Coming Back

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602869/manufacturing-jobs-arent-coming-back/

by SQL2219 • 10 years ago

54 107 10 years ago

technologyreview.com

alyeulra• 10 years ago

Technology should enhance quality of life of people. when it replaces people, chaos ensue !

Bombthecat• 10 years ago

Uhhh? So what?

andrewclunn2• 10 years ago

So no more dishwasher machines, forget self driving cars, bring back elevator operators, and have more laws like requiring gas station attendants in New Jersey... What a horrible notion that impeding progress to give people pointless work, which makes things less convenient and efficient, is somehow a fix. The population has gone from 1 to near 7 billion people in just over a hundred years. Economic incentives against just having more unskilled labor is not a flaw that needs fixing, it's or economic and environmental necessities coming into alignment, telling us that having 4+ kids is a bad idea in a world as overpopulated as this, and instead to have smaller families with more resources put into educating the one or two kids we do have

ethanbond2• 10 years ago

I don't see how this addresses the point that millions of people are suffering due to automation. Are you saying only the well off should be able to have kids?

Jedd3• 10 years ago

  > Technology should enhance quality of
  > life of people. when it replaces people,
  > chaos ensue !

This doesn't make much sense.

There's no 'should' with technology - it's merely a (set of) thing(s).

Replacing people, in the sense of doing away with Bullshit Jobs <tm> is entirely the goal of new technology - so that those people can do something else. Ideally that something else is something they want to do (and that may (but not necessarily does) improve the world).

I think your prediction that people will be replaced by technology is a little naive.

The idea that the pointless activities of some people will be replaced by the vague category of 'technology' is entirely palatable to most people.

applecore• 10 years ago

There's no 'should' with technology.

This is a common belief but it isn't true.

Actually, government plays a huge role in deciding how technology is developed and broadly adopted by society. There is a should with technology: in the sense of achieving a desirable or expected state.

Symmetry• 10 years ago

To a first approximation all improvements in people's standards of living come from reducing the amount of labor required to make stuff. In the long run the average consumption has to equal the average production. You can play around at the margin with varying distribution, imports and exports, or getting people to work longer hours. But those effects are all tiny compared to the effects of changes in worker productivity over the last 100 years.

a2tech• 10 years ago

Yup. This is what I was just arguing with my family about-they voted Trump because they want manufacturing jobs back. I pointed out that if the US imposes trade tariff's high enough to make manufacturing things like steel cost effective again in the US the people that build the plants will simply put in these kinds of robots-not people. Robots work Saturday and Sunday for the same cost as a week day and with far less bitching.

Amezarak• 10 years ago

That doesn't make it inevitable. We could create regulations about when and what automation is acceptable.

That reality seems more likely to me in the present climate than a maybe more ideal solution like basic income - though I think the most likely outcome is huge (and increasing) swaths of the population languishing in permanent poverty.

chopin• 10 years ago

though I think the most likely outcome is huge (and increasing) swaths of the population languishing in permanent poverty

I don't think so. You cannot only outsource manufacturing labor to robots. You can do with policing as well. So you don't have to worry for uprisings. These people will simply starve or being killed by robots.

yummyfajitas9• 10 years ago

Assume, hypothetically, that the rich use robots and form their own economy and wall themselves off from the rest. Why can't the remaining people form a non-automated economy amongst themselves?

Economically, it's equivalent to those rich people and their robots just not existing at all and their estates being filled with impassible mountains.

masklinn• 10 years ago

trade tariff's high enough to make manufacturing things like steel cost effective again in the US

Nota: steel is cost-effective in the US given a modern (and automated) enough plant. As of 2015 the US are the #4 largest steel producer in the word[0], #2 being Japan (the top 10 is China, Japan, India, USA, Russia, South Korea, Germany, Brazil, Turkey, Ukraine). Though part of that may be existing tariffs (US steel production is mostly internal, it's the #11 exporter and #1 net importer of steel)

Global steel employment has fallen like a brick since its heydays, even China's rise in steel jobs and production since the augths haven't compensated for the jobs lost to automation and efficiency increases (at mostly constant production outside of China).

[0] country-specific, excluding the EU block

onion2k• 10 years ago

Steel is expensive to move around. Making it where it's needed is a good idea. The same isn't true of most products.

melling• 10 years ago

Is a US factory with a lot of robots better than an foreign factory with people paid less than $8/hour? The rise of the robots is being held back by cheap humans.

Inconel3• 10 years ago

It is my feeling that at least some of the anger being expressed isn't so much about jobs being displaced by robots today or in the near future, although these are serious concerns as well, but instead the steady hollowing out of these manufacturing jobs through offshoring over a period of 20-30 years were the overwhelming financial benefits have gone to a very small portion of the American population, namely those occupying high positions within multinational corporations.

6502nerdface2• 10 years ago

Arguably the overwhelming benefits have gone to a very large portion of the American population, so large that it's hard for individuals to trace and see. Think of the cascade of effects of all these manufacturing outputs being created more efficiently/cheaply, which in turn are inputs to other products, and the opportunity savings of which flow into other endeavors all around us.

However, I do generally agree with your diagnosis that the anger isn't so much about automation per se, as about changes in post-war economic structures finally starting to reach some tipping point, whether perceived rightly or not.

akytt• 10 years ago

The facts do not seem to support that. Domestic output has steadily increased, ergo offshoring is not causing job loss.

GFischer5• 10 years ago

Another point I've seen made is that capital costs are cheaper than ever, so automation can be financed at almost no cost.

So higher tariffs will be a boon on robot-makers, not necessarily the working-class people that expected to take those jobs.

MK999• 10 years ago

Robotization is coming, eg Telsa, but it doesn't mean the trade deals are 'fair/free trade'.

China is a currency manipulator for example, which is well known, but I learned it in the free documentary 'Death by China'

sfifs• 10 years ago

The question is what does $8 per Hour look like when factoring in capital costs, maintenance and flexibility and that's not addressed by the article.

It's interesting that Apple and others closed ultra modern robotics factory in the US and now essentially assemble most stuff by hand in China.

It argues that robotics is not always a no brainer choice under many circumstances (which admittedly would be difficult to create in the US)

tanto• 10 years ago

It might be that Apple did that but do you think American employees will be as "flexible" and cheap as Chinese? If American factory workers are willing to work for less then Chinese your argument definitely holds.

cube00• 10 years ago

This may be true today but the technology is evolving faster then humans are.

zimpenfish• 10 years ago

http://atomicdelights.com/blog/why-your-next-iphone-wont-be-... (and other blog posts on the same blog) seems to disagree that Apple "essentially assembles most stuff by hand" - e.g.

Apple is the world's largest owner of CNC milling machines and swiss style lathes.

Inconel3• 10 years ago

You're correct in that Apple is one of, if not the largest owner of CNC machines, and that those machines are responsible for a large portion of their total manufacturing work, but I believe they still use a tremendous amount of human labor for final assembly.

WalterBright5• 10 years ago

One way is to lower the expense of hiring people in the US. An obvious one would be lowering payroll taxes for certain types of jobs. Another way is to simply lower the corporate tax rate, which would have the additional benefit of repatriating tons of money that is sitting offshore because of American tax rates.

alexandros• 10 years ago

And what when the robot goes to $4/hr? Eat less expensive food? Have fewer children? What when the robot goes to $0.02/hr?

Inconel3• 10 years ago

I've never run a company so this may be naive or uninformed on my part, but I get the impression that hiring and firing people, at least here in California, can be a costly process with regards to unemployment insurance, litigation for wrongful termination, etc. Again, I may be overestimating this burden on businesses so please correct me if I'm wrong.

One thing I've noticed over the years is that despite how good your interview/hiring process may be, you always end up with some hires that don't work out which lead me to believe that you probably turn away a near equal amount of applicants that would have been great employees. It's just very difficult to evaluate someone over the course of a few interviews. For entry level positions this is even harder since you may not have much professional experience or reputation to go by.

I've always thought it would be interesting if companies would run a kind of tryout phase of employment, say 1-3 months, paid of course, at the end of which the top performers would be given permanent employment. This way a company might be willing to take on more marginal applicants with the knowledge that it will be very easy to terminate them. I'm sure there are negative aspects of such a system that I'm not considering, but as a person working in aerospace doing manufacturing/skilled labor and without any formal education beyond high school to fall back on, I always thought such a system might be a good way for someone like me to get their foot in the door.

WalterBright5• 10 years ago

It is true that lowering the employment "friction" (i.e. cost of hiring and firing) means that employers will be more willing to take risks on new hires.

Some european countries make it difficult to fire people, with the unintended consequence that companies become very reluctant to hire in the first place.

fjrieiekd• 10 years ago

Probation? I thought companies already did do this. In many instances the labor laws have more leeway in the initial stages of employment.

cmdrfred7• 10 years ago

"Another way is to simply lower the corporate tax rate, which would have the additional benefit of repatriating tons of money that is sitting offshore because of American tax rates."

That worked so well the first time.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240529702036331045766237...

WalterBright5• 10 years ago

A one time tax break does not change the fundamental incentive structure, as building a significant business operation is a long term investment.

Fjolsvith2• 10 years ago

Well, I don't know how it is in other states, but in Kansas, only the first $12k of payroll per employee is taxed per year. The rest is exempt from tax. So, if you pay someone $10 an hour or $25 an hour for a full-time job for the year, the payroll tax is still the same for that employee.

johnatwork• 10 years ago

How would lowering the corporate tax rate make or facilitate a corporation to hire people in the US/Canada?

WalterBright5• 10 years ago

Lowering the cost of doing business in the US makes it more favorable for companies to locate their operations in the US.

noahmbarr• 10 years ago

As much as I support higher minimal wages, I can't help but conclude that this will only accelerate capital expendures in human-replacing automation

lisivka2• 10 years ago

Automation is good. Eventually, it will lead to shorter working day (e.g. 6 or even 4 hours), shorter working week (e.g. 4 days, or even 3.5 days), to longer vacations, to better health care, earlier retirement, and so on.

GFischer5• 10 years ago

I don't necessarily agree. That could be an outcome, but it would require policies or voluntary restraint to get there.

At least in my country (Uruguay), the lower earning 8% have 30% of the children, placing a huge strain on society and services (I don't see robots replacing medical and social services anytime soon).

So, to enable a sustainable society like you propose, something like a two children per couple rule should be enacted (hopefully nothing so harsh as the Chinese version).

bbctol• 10 years ago

If these benefits are demanded, either by government action or organized labor. If it's up to those who control corporations, they have no reason to cut hours and increase benefits out of the goodness of their own hearts; they'll just fire people.

throwaway7767• 10 years ago

It would be great if that were the result. But it remains to be seen. The requirement is that humans decide to change their economic system.

If we don't do that (and human society is really good at staying on autopilot until problems have gotten truly severe), we'll just end up with a mostly-automated society where the robot owners have everything and everyone else lives in a ghetto.

thro322• 10 years ago

it costs barely $8 an hour to use a robot for spot welding in the auto industry, compared to $25 for a worker—and the gap is only going to widen.

This is just wrong. Author does not know much about welding or car manufacturing.

- Car welding is a best case for robots. Single task repeated many times exactly the same way. Try different case and you get $1M/hour.

- $25/hour human cost is too low. With pauses, errors, delays... $100/hour would be more reasonable.

- Germany is exactly in this situation, but does not have problem with unemployment.

nickthemagicman• 10 years ago

Same thing with automated driving. Open interstate is fine, try to navigate Boston rush hour in a construction zone...

Fjolsvith2• 10 years ago

I am sure that Microsoft and Google are racing to have their AI be the first to do that.

lujim• 10 years ago

And here we see how news written by people without industry experience meant to be consumed by people without industry experience for the purpose of promoting a political idea can use pieces of real information to promote something less than the truth.

Next time you want to see if you trust a certain source for any of your information, pay close attention when they report on a topic where you have a lot of experience. As someone with a professional aviation background, watching CNN cover any aviation topic causes me physical pain.

maxerickson7• 10 years ago

It's quite likely they are quoting the actual costs from 2 different car plants.

(that would make them highly task specific, but it would reflect the difference in welding costs for producing cars on a high volume line)

thro322• 10 years ago

I checked linked study:

A human welder today earns around $25 per hour (including benefits), while the equivalent operating cost per hour for a robot is around $8 when installation, maintenance, and the operating costs of all hardware, software, and peripherals are amortized over a five-year depreciation period.

So human cost does not include total cost, just labour. Comparable cost would be around $100

fixxer4• 10 years ago

And this was published under the banner of MIT without 'editorial' or 'opinion'.

This is fact! /s

Reads like another partisan puff piece griping about the election to me, which is a shame because the underlying concept (automation) is interesting to me, but the conclusion (manufacturing is doomed) is hyperbole.

maxerickson7• 10 years ago

The plummeting cost of capital plant!

Which to me raises an important question. Why aren't these huge cost reductions showing up in the prices of products from competitive industries like autos?

nommm-nommm4• 10 years ago

Every year cars are required to have more and more safety features which raises the price.

cmdrfred7• 10 years ago

They aren't as competitive as they appear.

GFischer5• 10 years ago

Cars ARE cheaper. However, as a sibling commenter mentions, consumers demand more features, so they're spending about the same (inflation adjusted).

I took the time to investigate a few months ago and came up with this (UK-centric) example:

Let's take a cheap car from the 1960s, an Austin Mini Cooper.

A 1960s Mini Cooper was about 500 pounds. That's 10.000 pounds in today's money.

Today you can buy a Dacia Sandero for 6.000 pounds. That's almost half of a Mini Cooper.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12551017

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-2232885/Top-...

nommm-nommm4• 10 years ago

consumers demand more features

I don't think customers demand more features as much as governments mandate more [safety] features. Well, maybe some features are mostly market driven like power windows replacing crank windows and keyless entry. But I believe car companies would build bargain basement death machines if they were legally allowed to.

Here's some inflation adjusted average car prices for the US - http://whnt.com/2016/04/25/the-average-car-now-costs-25449-h... Cars were the cheapest in the early 70s.

mattbrewsbytes2• 10 years ago

Does the US really have a problem with unemployment? Nationally it is at its lowest since like 2000 - around 5% now. Yes averages are not good to use, there are areas where it might be 0.5% and some where it is 10%.

Bringing back things we used to do is looking in the rear view mirror. There should be investments in technology, education geared towards that and visionary things for us to accomplish for the future.

fixxer4• 10 years ago

No, we have a problem with wage growth.

That isn't to say that the types of jobs have a huge impact. If McD paid $25/hr with full benefits, nobody would give a shit. Kind of hard to make that sustainable without clawing back real jobs from the 3rd world.

Germany seems to do a fine job with their auto industry, robots and all. I think this article is very flawed as that $8 task is but one of many and also one of the few perfect for a robot. "Spot welding isn't coming back to human manufacturing" is more accurate.

cmdrfred7• 10 years ago

Workforce participation numbers are also rather low.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/labor-force-...

moyta• 10 years ago

And a problem with workers rights, our citizens are not fighting for a better working environment.

the8472• 10 years ago

Those gains are not equally spread over all demographics. The decline in some groups can be masked by gains in others.

nommm-nommm4• 10 years ago

I don't know the answer to your specific question but I want to mention unemployment may be a misleading number. Unemployment only counts people who are actively looking for employment. It doesn't include those who have given up and dropped out of the labor market or those who are underemployed. It's only one metric of the health of the workforce and shouldn't be looked at alone.

mattbrewsbytes2• 10 years ago

Good points. Getting metrics that cover underemployed and apathy would be difficult.

Where I was going was that it appears looking backwards to want to bring jobs back that were outsourced for mostly cheaper labor. If US companies could do those things here profitably, they would.

humanrebar• 10 years ago

Yes. Look at how the labor force participation rate has changed over the last ten or twenty years.

kaa2102• 10 years ago

I like to tinker and build things. I still go to humans for value-added sheet-metal work and welding. However, downstream, mature manufacturing processes are ripe for replacement by automation.

GFischer5• 10 years ago

A family member that works with industrial assembly lines purchased one, and it has been a huge boon for him, especially since he doesn't have to subcontract a welder so much.

He does need a person to watch over the robot for theft and most especially sabotage, but even then, it's much cheaper than a trained welder (and welds more cleanly).

The construction syndicate here in Uruguay is very big and very radicalized, making construction costs ridiculously expensive compared to average wages, I fear for the first person to bring the bricklaying robot here:

Edit: the robot I'm talking about is a robotic orbital welder, something like this one:

https://www.robots.com/articles/viewing/a-round-the-edge-orb...

iamgopal• 10 years ago

With all being said, can a country without export or import can grow in terms of quality of live indefinitely??

Mc_Big_G• 10 years ago

Haha, yeah I said as much in a FB post to my Trump supporting friends. Do you really think Trump can stop self-driving cars from taking away your truck driving job? I doubt it.

rabboRubble3• 10 years ago

Question for fellow Hackernewsers... my family is from middle America. One of my younger female relatives is going into the welding trade. She's one of the more talented young welders out there blending skill and artistry.

My question is this: what would you suggest as a way to "robot proof" herself from the inevitable automation of the welding trade while staying true to her craft?

TYPE_FASTER• 10 years ago

Work on R&D and creating robots. And, like you said, the arts...

rabboRubble3• 10 years ago

The arts are notoriously bad at providing a living. She's planning on welding for a living wage, and art on the side.

FiatLuxDave• 10 years ago

Suggestion: Learn to do welding of vacuum chambers. Think A&N corp, Kurt J. Lesker, etc. The welds have to be done on the inside of the chamber, then cleaned, and I have yet to see a good robot for this. The market is small enough that it may cost more to develop a good robot than it is worth. It also pays higher than standard welding.

/used to hire a vacuum welder

rabboRubble3• 10 years ago

Thanks FlatLuxDave! I'll pass this along.

Manufacturing Jobs Aren’t Coming Back

Related Stories