but I wonder if you could give me your insight on it. While it shows that robots are not replacing so many workers, I was drawn to the definition of robots it, and others use:
“These machines are defined by The International Federation of Robotics as “an automatically controlled, reprogrammable, and multipurpose [machine]” (IFR 2014; see also Graetz and Michaels, 2015). Industrial robots are fully autonomous machines that can be programmed to perform several manual tasks such as welding, painting, assembling, handling materials, or packaging.”
Then they follow up with “non robots automation” (my words):
“This definition excludes other types of capital, such as software, that may also replace labour, and machines designed for a single function, such as cranes, circuit printers, textile looms or coffee machines.”
My thoughts would be that non robot automation effects on workers would far exceed the effects of robots on workers.
If we stop and look what happened to Ford Assembly. They changed how things happened by adding moving conveyors. Westinghouse did time studies. Old factories used to group machines by functions. Saws together, grinders together, drill presses together, turret lathes together, welding, deburring, and then washing. All separate stations and they would move pallets of components across the floor to each station according to a routing which would detail what needed to be done.
Mechanical automatic came into play with machines called 6 and 8 spindle Bullards. It might take 24 hours to setup these automatics; but, you could run things like hydraulic cylinder heads and caps across them efficiently. If you went by size, you would start with small nd go to large sizes or a family of parts with minimum breakdown of the setups.
ARO Tool in Bryan, Ohio did aerospace pneumatics. We laid out the flow of that factory by moving presses and other equipment so there would be a flow from material to shipping of parts in process. The only thing we did not move was the plating tank which was too big.
I wrote about Miami industries and its manufacture of tubing. Simple solution had a “yuge” impact on the shop floor. Cut your lot sizes and delivery would improve as you could move from size to size faster cutting delivery by 50%. That was just a start.
Simple Lean project dealt with set up for Chrysler DS hood and other hoods. It took an hour and 15 minutes to set that cell up. We got it down to 15 minutes. Made tools resident to the cell. Commonized vacuum grips, etc. all of it was worth an hour in non-production time of a cell with three pieces of equipment in it.
Toyoda Production system, Focus factories, Goldratt theory of constraints, These were not necessarily robotics as much as improving throughput by maximizing the usage of present day equipment.
Therefore, when talking about automation replacing workers(which it obviously has), why is there a paper like this that talks about robots replacing workers when the definition of robots is so confined as to ignore much observation of the effects of automation on workers?
I don’t know about you, but if I am a factory worker whose job is replaced by a machine I really do not care whether that machine is stupid or a robot.
I just see this as another attempt to place more blame on trade than is real. Not that I do not believe trade has a huge influence on workers. But it makes no sense to have these kinds of papers that may influence our decisions to help workers based on such flawed findings.
In the sixties and going forward as Drucker would have told you; Labor was a larger part of the cost of manufacturing (not larger than Overhead or Materials). Linen, Levis, clothe manufacturing all went over seas where Labor was <$1/hour and Overhead associated with Labor was virtually non-existent. Anything Labor intensive went to countries with high levels of cheap Labor. Heckscher–Ohlin theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckscher%E2%80%93Ohlin_theorem It was easy to whack labor and easy to eliminate cost. Nobody was thinking about “what do we do with these leftovers now?” The Direct Cost of Labor in Manufacturing has been < 10% for decades now. Gettelfinger made just such a statement (I heard that one) to the Congressional Hearings on the automotive bailout. Not that it matter much as Labor was the villain according to Corker and company. Automotive had started automating and was automating at a fast clip then moving farther out into the country with new factories.
3, 4, and 5 axis CNC equipment was also in factories. In the eighties it was 2 and 3 axis, which was 2 and three other machining efforts combined. One operator replacing three. I was in this facory in China. They make CNC equipment and the bases for all the other companies. Forging, Castings, and Machining $1 billion in casting/forging plant + $1 billion in machining. Does bases for CNC, welding. etc. http://www.tontec.net/www/index_en.php
I was also here: http://www.cugroup.com/en/?id0=2&id1=15 This place forges and machines all the bearing bases and ring bearings used in China it is called 8+1 or C&U. It has an office near Plymouth, MI. In their plant they have an automated piece of equipment which will take a glowing ingot the size of a VW bug and machine it into a ring to make an eight foot bearing which is used in rotary tables for manufacturing at different stations. I can not tell you how many jobs the forging piece of equipment replaced in China. They would not allow us to take pictures of it as it was still new and unknown and unheard of yet. Website does not talk about this piece.
Google Martin Ford. He used to post at Angry Bear till he became too famous. "Lights in The Tunnel" is his book. A lot of truth to what he is saying. Economists today in arguing automation and Labor are giving Republicans a lot of fuel to burn.
As firms replace labor with machines firms increase their fixed cost and reducing their variable cost. Where do we reach the point where firms behavior in business downturns changes. If firms can not reduce cost and spending by laying off labor, do they start cutting prices as long as variable cost are covered? Basic econ 101 theory suggest this would happen.
Run,
Don’t know if you saw this:
http://voxeu.org/article/robots-and-jobs-evidence-us
but I wonder if you could give me your insight on it. While it shows that robots are not replacing so many workers, I was drawn to the definition of robots it, and others use:
“These machines are defined by The International Federation of Robotics as “an automatically controlled, reprogrammable, and multipurpose [machine]” (IFR 2014; see also Graetz and Michaels, 2015). Industrial robots are fully autonomous machines that can be programmed to perform several manual tasks such as welding, painting, assembling, handling materials, or packaging.”
Then they follow up with “non robots automation” (my words):
“This definition excludes other types of capital, such as software, that may also replace labour, and machines designed for a single function, such as cranes, circuit printers, textile looms or coffee machines.”
My thoughts would be that non robot automation effects on workers would far exceed the effects of robots on workers.
Your thoughts?
EM:
If we stop and look what happened to Ford Assembly. They changed how things happened by adding moving conveyors. Westinghouse did time studies. Old factories used to group machines by functions. Saws together, grinders together, drill presses together, turret lathes together, welding, deburring, and then washing. All separate stations and they would move pallets of components across the floor to each station according to a routing which would detail what needed to be done.
Mechanical automatic came into play with machines called 6 and 8 spindle Bullards. It might take 24 hours to setup these automatics; but, you could run things like hydraulic cylinder heads and caps across them efficiently. If you went by size, you would start with small nd go to large sizes or a family of parts with minimum breakdown of the setups.
ARO Tool in Bryan, Ohio did aerospace pneumatics. We laid out the flow of that factory by moving presses and other equipment so there would be a flow from material to shipping of parts in process. The only thing we did not move was the plating tank which was too big.
I wrote about Miami industries and its manufacture of tubing. Simple solution had a “yuge” impact on the shop floor. Cut your lot sizes and delivery would improve as you could move from size to size faster cutting delivery by 50%. That was just a start.
Simple Lean project dealt with set up for Chrysler DS hood and other hoods. It took an hour and 15 minutes to set that cell up. We got it down to 15 minutes. Made tools resident to the cell. Commonized vacuum grips, etc. all of it was worth an hour in non-production time of a cell with three pieces of equipment in it.
Toyoda Production system, Focus factories, Goldratt theory of constraints, These were not necessarily robotics as much as improving throughput by maximizing the usage of present day equipment.
Run,
I understand, and you prove my thoughts correct.
Therefore, when talking about automation replacing workers(which it obviously has), why is there a paper like this that talks about robots replacing workers when the definition of robots is so confined as to ignore much observation of the effects of automation on workers?
I don’t know about you, but if I am a factory worker whose job is replaced by a machine I really do not care whether that machine is stupid or a robot.
I just see this as another attempt to place more blame on trade than is real. Not that I do not believe trade has a huge influence on workers. But it makes no sense to have these kinds of papers that may influence our decisions to help workers based on such flawed findings.
EM:
In the sixties and going forward as Drucker would have told you; Labor was a larger part of the cost of manufacturing (not larger than Overhead or Materials). Linen, Levis, clothe manufacturing all went over seas where Labor was <$1/hour and Overhead associated with Labor was virtually non-existent. Anything Labor intensive went to countries with high levels of cheap Labor. Heckscher–Ohlin theorem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckscher%E2%80%93Ohlin_theorem It was easy to whack labor and easy to eliminate cost. Nobody was thinking about “what do we do with these leftovers now?” The Direct Cost of Labor in Manufacturing has been < 10% for decades now. Gettelfinger made just such a statement (I heard that one) to the Congressional Hearings on the automotive bailout. Not that it matter much as Labor was the villain according to Corker and company. Automotive had started automating and was automating at a fast clip then moving farther out into the country with new factories.
3, 4, and 5 axis CNC equipment was also in factories. In the eighties it was 2 and 3 axis, which was 2 and three other machining efforts combined. One operator replacing three. I was in this facory in China. They make CNC equipment and the bases for all the other companies. Forging, Castings, and Machining $1 billion in casting/forging plant + $1 billion in machining. Does bases for CNC, welding. etc. http://www.tontec.net/www/index_en.php
I was also here: http://www.cugroup.com/en/?id0=2&id1=15 This place forges and machines all the bearing bases and ring bearings used in China it is called 8+1 or C&U. It has an office near Plymouth, MI. In their plant they have an automated piece of equipment which will take a glowing ingot the size of a VW bug and machine it into a ring to make an eight foot bearing which is used in rotary tables for manufacturing at different stations. I can not tell you how many jobs the forging piece of equipment replaced in China. They would not allow us to take pictures of it as it was still new and unknown and unheard of yet. Website does not talk about this piece.
Here is an interesting article for you. It is a bit old; but, it makes the point. http://www.plasticstoday.com/content/manufacturing-china-true-cost-may-surprise-you/3186036512801
Google Martin Ford. He used to post at Angry Bear till he became too famous. "Lights in The Tunnel" is his book. A lot of truth to what he is saying. Economists today in arguing automation and Labor are giving Republicans a lot of fuel to burn.
As firms replace labor with machines firms increase their fixed cost and reducing their variable cost. Where do we reach the point where firms behavior in business downturns changes. If firms can not reduce cost and spending by laying off labor, do they start cutting prices as long as variable cost are covered? Basic econ 101 theory suggest this would happen.