Stop Blaming Automation!

Truer words were never spoken

The Luddites, like the Flat Earthers, seem to have a small but vocal following that is dubious in its goals....I think it's really just anecdotal noise from chronic complainers...once you get downsized out of a job you've held for 20+ years it creates a lot of emotional turmoil and stress, but eventually you move on like a drunken bar fight loser limps away from the scene shouting empty threats over his shoulder...It's just human nature...Who hasn't been blindsided by life at one time or another?? Who's responsible?? ...nobody that's who...It's happened to me so many times the only thing you hear from me is the door slamming, because I've moved on....

Many people forget the title of Luddite comes from Ned Ludd and his failed 19^th century rebellion against industrial weaving. Complaining about automation is not a new phenomena and it won't stop.

What we can learn from Ned Ludd's failed efforts is the few prized artistic weavers (then and today) are still able to make money selling their hand woven artwork. Perfectly repeated tasks to make identical fabrics are best handled by automation.

..."At first the Luddites were simply a group of organised artisans who did not believe in the technological advancements of the Industrial Revolution and took serious action to prevent or even simply outright destroy them.

Their stories started in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Lancashire but they didn’t end there.

It is well known that in during the Industrial Revolution many children were used as low paid labourers. But almost every sex, race, age and religion was put to work as everyone removed the old ways and brought in the new simply to survive the hard times the mass movement to the cities brought.

Many of their jobs were just to tend to machines and steam engines that needed cleaning, working and maintenance. But as the machines got more and more advanced the skilled artisans and craft knitters of old ran out of jobs as they became replaced with machines and youth labour.

How could they stand by as they were replaced by massive hulks off moving metal? They all decided to take action. They made no small matter of it either they went in their hundreds to fight the future and smash every machine and factory floor,no matter who or what stood in their way.

The Luddites of the first Industrial revolution did more then just smashed machines they started with peaceful protests and petitions to the parliament in an attempt to use legislation that was already in place to fight a war they hoped not to fight.

But when peace was no longer and option, and they were driven out of their work, and their lives, they had been pushed too far. Riots, violent protests, marches, threatening letters to dignitaries and factory owners and even the assassination of the prime minister Spencer Percival but even this could not stop the future. "...

https://ludditesadvancementsintechnology.weebly.com/an-introduction-to-luddites.html

Its because they look at their own situation... They have to change, while the rest look at it as an opportunity.

The UBI will also generate tremendous inflationary pressure. If everybody gets a basic income, prices of everything will rise (somebody has to pay for it, so the companies/individuals being taxed to pay for it will have to raise prices or will need higher wages). Once the cost of living rises, people will clamor for a higher UBI. The cost of living will rise right along with the UBI.

So no one is better off, and people will be in the same boat after the UBI is started as they were beforehand. It's essentially a zombie economy. That sucking sound you'll hear is the economy spiraling down the drainhole.

You know there are other groups that do this already....they don't seem to have the problems we do...and inflation is controlled by the money supply, not wages...we're likely to save as much money as we spend, perhaps even more in the long run....

..."So, when the Federal Reserve increases its interest rate, banks have no choice but to increase their rates as well. When banks increase their rates, less people want to borrow money because it costs more to do so while that money accrues at a higher interest. So, spending drops, prices drop and inflation slows."....Jan 9, 2018

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111314/what-methods-can-government-use-control-inflation.asp

Why isn't basic economics taught in grade school? Maybe a topic for another discussion.

"We should embrace and encourage [automation] so that we can live better with lower cost products. We are enjoying benefits we do not deserve because of [automation]. I simply believe that people should quit complaining about the thing that gives them more buying power."

But as you said earlier, it is business models, better business models (including automation) that survive and ride the next wave of the economy. It would be easy to agree with the statement I quoted about [automation], why not, but if you substitute [globalization] or [free trade agreements] for [automation] it reads just as well and makes just as much sense. People have protested those business models just as much as automation, but they became a reality, why, because products could be made more cheaply, it was a business model that made sense and this is why it continues to be a global economy, albeit with some bumpy dynamics and a few holdouts like North Korea.

When I go to the dollar store and buy a set of drinking glasses from Indonesia for $2, I am enjoying the buying power I do not deserve because the established businesses for the same merch had to charge 3X the price and we believed they were reasonable until the Dollar Store said we could do better. I am living better with the rugged LED emergency flashlight @ $2, and if I can't afford a more expensive one because of a hiccup in the economy it no longer matters. Etc.

The fact that it is "magic merch" just like credit cards and the stock market are "magic money" doesn't seem to matter. I may as well enjoy the advantages that it provides and live as well as I can.

But people still need 'jobs' with salaries to buy merch that is made cheaply by machines or offshore enterprises. So I do agree, automate, innovate, make things happen in your local economy to generate buying power, and be strategic in your choice of business and business model. If you can do something better, cheaper, or innovatively different than the global competition, you can be confident to succeed.

You said, "It is not automation that is responsible, it is business."

I agree, but the real culprit is Congress.

You say taxes are partially responsible and it's really the dysfunctional members of Congress who take bribes to do the bidding of business.

There were tax breaks for companies who moved off shore, tax breaks to stay there and now tax breaks to bome back.

New Legislation Would End Tax Incentives to Move Jobs and Profits ...

One of the biggest problems with the United States tax code is that it encourages multinational corporations to artificially shift their profits offshore, or even shift real investments and jobs offshore, to avoid paying taxes. A real tax reform would have put an end to tax avoidance and the tax incentives for offshoring, but the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) made both of these problems worse.

That's just wrong....history has shown that fair tax rates increase revenue and that the wealthiest of Americans pay the lion's share of taxes...

“1 percent of households with the highest incomes pay 38 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. Meanwhile, 46 percent of households pay no federal income tax at all.”

https://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/who-bears-the-tax-burden-in-the-us

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/who-bears-burden-corporate-income-tax

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/09/26/getting-facts-straight-americas-tax-burden

You say, "tax rates increase revenue." The tax rates recently enacted increase revenue for the richest 1% you feel sorry for, only.

This statement says it all. "You all just got a lot richer."

"You all just got a lot richer," Trump tells friends, referencing tax ...

It's really difficult to understand just how much money someone who is incredibly rich really needs.

Talk to someone who has to choose between critical drug prescriptions to stay alive and slowly starving because they can't afford food too.

Well then those people should get some assistance...

https://www.needymeds.org/pap

https://www.rxresource.org/pbm/cant-afford-medication.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/02/02/high-drug-prices-help-afford-medications/79201120/

"Those people" very likely don't have a computer, nor the means to use it effectively if they do. If they try calling for assistance on a land line, they may die while on hold.

"Those people" don't pay Congress to write laws that favor them. Big pharma does.

Again, we'll get nowhere with this.

More power to you if you are happy with Congress and our current political quagmire. I am not.

I don't believe that's true....and the stats don't support your position...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/272365/age-distribution-of-internet-users-worldwide/

...and I don't see that this Congress is any different than those that came before them...or probably those that will follow...

The richer someone is, the poorer they think they are, whereas the poorer someone is, the richer they wish they were.

The poor guy goes into a restaurant gets a meal and pays the 15% tip. The rich guy goes into a restaurant and scoffs at the tip because he thinks he got overcharged for the meal.

As a direct result of automation there will be no others to blame, only iters.

Funny you should post this as I just read an article on just this subject.

https://www.wired.com/2017/08/robots-will-not-take-your-job/

It is amazing how many people believe automation is exclusive. In most cases, automation is only reasonable when the volume of production is really high. Perhaps it was the advent of the 3D printer that shook up so many people. They are truly an amazing innovation, but they are so slow compared to other methods.

Great responses from everyone. Thank you for your thoughts.

Solar Eagle, you rock. Lyn, you keep me entertained either way you go on a subject.

It is really great to have a forum to discuss these engineering wonders. High marks for everyone!

Thanks. Since I quit my day job, entertainment is my life.

As an aside, about 10 years ago, I needed multiple plastic housings painted.

I visited a production paint shop where many robots were employed. (As in being used to paint things)

It was a sight to behold. Having painted a few cars years ago, I believe that robots are far better at applying paint than even the most experienced painter. Welders, too.

The quality is only as good as the programming(or teaching). Same goes for use of computers, if you don't have it programmed right, s.. in = s... out.

For the most part, programming is done with a pendant... none if any user input programming language required.

One thing I frequently observe: An individual who does not know how to run a manual machine generally does not know how to program a CNC to machine. There is a basic skill set of knowing what can and cannot be done that must be learned before you can be a successful programmer.

The same applies to CAD. I see many young engineering graduates who don't know how to asses the sanity level of a design. I recall one design that required installation of a fastener inside a fully closed container. The software lets you design it, but reality generally leads to a recalibration.

Its a skill and I agree with that.

I'll also add, that even knowing CAD does not a engineer make. Its a tool that requires skill to know how to use it. If you have a good foundation of engineering training, whether its structured class room or practical experience it's then an added asset.

There may be minor refinements made, but I'd bet there are 3D models and paint gun specifications/parameters/coordinates for every job on file.

Could you be more specific on the painting operation.

My guess is production, straight colors, no artistry. The robot will never have the inspiration for creativity like a professional air brush artist has.

To go along with the computer programming, as the other's have said, the spray apparatus has to be up to par to fully utilize those commands. The robot may work well in that situation.

Yes, production. That is not artistry, I agree. Artistry, to be true art, lies as much with the beholder as the artist.

As I said, the spray equipment and such must be capable of consistent performance and so must the software.

Using a robot, properly programmed with brush strokes, I believe that a pinstripe artist could stripe something. But, it would not be cost effective.

Cost effective , like this ?

Beats me. I have no idea what you have posted.

Maybe you could provide a link?

Website : petrohead dot com

I let you go the page.

I have clicked on links solar eagle has posted in the past and it initiates a download.

Yes those would be .pdf files....perfectly safe as read only files...You should learn the different file types and their capabilities....proper virus protection safeguards your computer...

Windows warnings are useless...get Norton, or some other virus protection...

https://lifehacker.com/5703462/disable-the-this-type-of-file-can-harm-your-computer-message-in-chrome

A real threat when you see this....but it's blocked

I'm not complaining. Just noting.

The information you provide is well thought out.

Sometimes with the amount of information you provide makes me think you are chief programmer for both Wikipedia & Google.

This is supposed to be a compliment.

That would be true. We save all our files as well. Refinements are usually required until everything is fine tuned.

Automation is inevitable for most repetitive "jobs", agreed. There are, however, some circumstances which almost preclude the use of robots. Automation for large volume companies does make financial sense, but for smaller, more competitive businesses which have a low barrier to entry, automation is not economically feasible because of the capital outlay required - that is unless you can garner some government money to do so and can spend the time-$- involved in doing so.

I have seen it tried in my particular niche industry only once, and it did not succeed. Even that instance with the backing of a very large international corporation with all the $ needed for the initial capital investment it was doomed to failure as they could not get the volume of work required since it is a very competitive industry, which relies on innovation rather than automation.

I have pride in myself for employing people and being able to remain competitive.

Recent article in Electronics360:

http://electronics360.globalspec.com/article/11179/nearly-half-the-workforce-will-be-replaced-by-robots-by-2035

And I've read a range of other predictions about the extent to which, and when, robots will push a lot of people out of the workforce. The answer to these questions (when and how much) are critically important but I doubt we'll know the answer until 2035 gets here and we are or are not blessed with a huge robot workforce and high human unemployment.

Its interesting to point out what sector of the work force. This should be publicized in school, elementary school.

If you want to be self sustaining... you're going to need a STEM based education.

Yes but new jobs are being created, so people may have to relocate to different jobs, but that doesn't mean jobs aren't available...and with new workers entering the workforce and older people retiring out of jobs, this is something that has always taken place....the type of work required, changes over time, as do the workers....A lot of people work in jobs that didn't exist 50 years ago...

https://books.google.com/books?id=mcE9CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=lifecycle+of+a+job+in+society&source=bl&ots=GwQKjlmq8Q&sig=I71SL0ZVKv2ISGNihKAjZHcZih0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKmf68hcnZAhWJuFMKHV8TCVwQ6AEIbDAI#v=onepage&q=lifecycle%20of%20a%20job%20in%20society&f=false

I DON'T SEE AUTOMATION AS THE ISSUE. (YES, I'M YELLING)

I see that the issue is cost accounting standards.

A case in point: I once worked for a landscaping equipment company that was absorbed by another company. (The name rhymed with Gecko.) At this other company, one day, I observed what would be considered to be wasteful practices as follows:

1. A work order for a plastic handle was transacted in the inventory/production control system. A plastic handle came off an injection molding machine. It was loaded into a tote box under a part number and lift trucked to a warehouse and transacted into inventory.

2. A work order for a rubber insert was transacted in the inventory/production control system. A rubber cover for the plastic handle was molded on the machine next to the plastic handle machine. The parts were loaded into a tote box and lift trucked to a warehouse and transacted into inventory.

3. A work order for a handle , complete, was entered into the inventory/production control system. The plastic handle, rubber insert and two screws were transacted out of inventory, loaded into tote boxes and lift trucked to assembly.

4. The plastic handle, rubber insert and two screws were assembled, placed in a tote box and lift trucked to the warehouse and transacted into inventory.

5. A work order for string trimmer was entered into the inventory/production control system. The handle, complete, was transacted out of inventory, placed into a tote and lift trucked back to assembly, where the handle complete, was thrown into a string trimmer carton.

By the time the handle hit the final carton it had travelled three miles by lift truck, been handled 8 times and had 16 inventory transactions, most of which never entered the product direct cost.

I asked why the handle and rubber insert were not combined at the molding station and transacted to inventory as a handle, complete, and was told that it was less expensive to do it as described above.

From an operations and manufacturing standpoint, the cost of the inventory/production control transactions was allocated to administrative overhead and was not included in the product cost. Likewise, warehouse and lift truck costs were also allocated to administrative overhead and not included in the direct factory cost.

Book keepers can make liars of us all.

My first direct bump with automation was a friend who lost his job due to the introduction of the first production/inventory control systems. He was a production scheduler and knew how to use rolodex cards. He didn't know the first thing about computers and washed out of his trade in 1985, when the IBM PC hit the street.

Many of the automation initiatives fall apart financially depending on how the costs are allocated and applied. I saw one company fail because they spent millions on a software business management suite where the cost to purchase the system, train users and then operational expense to run the system never actually got rolled down into direct product cost. The administrative overhead ate them alive.

All sounds very true. But,, if a company and whomever runs same, cannot see the overhead or burden being added and make allowances in their pricing structure are probably doomed anyway. Any well organized and run company has to know what the costs are, both direct and indirect (all overheads included). If you don't know that,,,, you should not be in business, or you won't be for very long unless there are some very deep pockets involved.

As for the 16 transactions, it's all about inventory control, not that I totally agree in all cases, but every?¿? company needs some kind of it.

You have good points about visibility. Usually the lack of visibility is a judgment choice of the level of detail you report costing and a certain amount of laziness. In just about every company I see, the admin overhead gets added as a percentage of direct factory cost.

Where it meets the road, most companies take capital equipment, amortize it and add a percentage markup, ala automated burger flipping machine. The amortized capital expense is not part of the per unit direct factory cost, and there are some reasons for not doing so. However, it makes it easy to show with numbers that automating a process vs semi-auto or manual is a cost winner if you are comparing direct factory unit cost. Some cost studies amortize the capital expense, but I haven't seen one yet that allocates capital equipment support, as in the people in the front office generating a work order, inventory transaction or in the case of the burger flipper, maintenance of the secret sauce dispensing portion of the program.

Anybody have the Szechuan Dipping Sauce yesterday? I thought it had a soapy aftertaste. Maybe alternate universe Ricks have weird taste buds....

You are correct, amortizing is what the tax system allows. If the $ for the investment is not immediately available, long or short term debt can be established, easy enough to do at any bank as they will have the equipment as collateral.

The key is knowing what all those indirect costs are and applying them accordingly. The application is also very dependent on sales forecasts. I used to give the big boss, at the time when I had one, graphs of the indirect (both fixed and variable) costs based on minimum and maximum sales forecasts. Then it was up to "senior" management, a luxury I no longer have as I am it.

I remember one of the environmentalist who use to blame trains and other transport systems for pollution and many other social problems. Yet He proudly uses free tickets of Indian railways to commute around the country and preaches people to follow old.

He use to object any govt act that may improve people life. Yet govt offers him free travels in railways and roadways.

it is only going to get more and more automated. the cost of machines are far less than people. This is the final result of capitalism, which is why as a stand alone social system, it fails because it is based on the concept that things go on forever. We will get to a point where our token economy will no longer work because there won't be any work for people to do.

now you really want to warp your mind, check out how bitcoins come into existence.

There are a lot of jobs that will never be in danger of automation....Exotic dancer for example...

Don't bet on it Sophia is walking and Asimo can dance.

That may be true, But I doubt you or I have the necessary qualifications.

I do not agree. Automation is what occurs when a process or product has matured. Product design for automation isn't new but that didn't stop managers from trying to and sometimes succeeding at automating where they could.

Some machines that are built don't always perform as well as anticipated. And they can't load raw materials by themselves most of the time. Most panel builders only provide enough code to do what was asked which can be a long way from what was needed. Paying for automation to be built requires a strong economic push else it won't pay for itself.

Troubleshooting is still mostly a manual effort. Very few PLC programmers bid enough into a "project" to build in diagnostics. But, that could change eventually.

New products is what drives the economy. Ask any marketer. Why else are new automobile introduced every year? Some people become bored very quickly without new stuff being thrown at them. There is no "perfect" product (excluding food) that people will always buy.

Years ago it was predicted that we would all turn to a service economy but that has not happened. That idea is precludes growth except by inflation. Only "new" services and new products increase the money pool but only in the introduction. After that it just falls in line with other existing services and products.

Manufacturing has been given credit for 60% of the wealth of the United States as of approximately 1980. When it left, it took jobs with it. I believe that was a conservative estimate. I believe that making stuff from raw materials is where wealth building begins. The thing that creates jobs is innovation and with those opportunities, the opportunity to be the lowest cost provider is not always considered. Without refinement and cost reduction, many products are doomed to suffer from product life cycle restraints.

I'd like to know if there was ever a new product introduced at the lowest possible cost with automation being used from the start. I seriously doubt it. Everyone wants to recover their R&D cost to bring something new to the market before automation is considered. I don't believe that has changed much over the years. Consequently, there will always be jobs for people because high speed automation is rarely the starting point. I believe that the above described approach may go on forever.

Prior to 3-D printing I would agree that automation only happens with a mature product. Now that small scale 3-D printing exists in many homes and hobbyists I'm not so sure "one-off" custom systems won't be more often automated.

There will always be niche products that cannot be built by automation but more and more often these items reside more in the arts than manufacturing. I do agree that troubleshooting will forever be a manual effort for no programmer can foresee every possible problem. (They now cannot foresee every possibility when nothing fails.) [Speak of the devil, I'm getting an update.]

3D printing. Now is that automation or just different "tooling" to do the same job?? All be it a lot more sophisticated tooling.

NotUrOrdinaryJoe,

Built-in diagnostics for a PLC-based project depends so much on the type of operator interface used. That can be done well when there is a screen but is much more rudimentary if all you have are one or more pilot lights and perhaps a buzzer or horn.

With a screen you can have menus of windows with details; even with a 3x20 character display you can tell the operator a lot. I usually worked with pilot lights for the many panels I built "back in the day", but tried to always include some indication of why a system was not running when the operator might expect it to--typically with a coded series of blinks on a pilot light. Of course, printed documentation as well as informative legend plates is important. In doing this you have to pay careful attention to human factors such as horn placement, length of horn sounding or use of periodic beeps, etc. Its real bad if all the operator can do is say "The #%$^ thing won't work".

--JMM

"Rather than invest in better methods,..." I witnessed firsthand the move of jobs out of this country, traveling to sites where factories were being taken down and where they were being reassembled in other countries. The driver for this was lowered production costs--which can be attributed to the costs of labor, safety, paperwork, and liability. The costs of raw materials were unchanged and the costs of transportation were actually increased. We are seeing today an attempt to move jobs back by imposing relatively arbitrary tariffs on imported raw materials. Perhaps better would be imposing an import tariff on completed items, based on the difference in production costs by the manufacturer having lowered safety, employee health and rules costs, and similar "savings". If this were done, I believe some of these manufacturing processes would move back because of reduced costs for transportation, warehousing, time-to-delivery, and similar--even though the cost per unit for labor would still be higher.

"Automation" needs to be done with some intelligence--just because we can do it with a program or computer does not mean this results in better service or a better product. I remember a call to a company in Switzerland, answered by an operator with only three words--a greeting in each of three languages. Without further explanation the call proceeded in the language I then chose (the operator was multi-lingual). Compare that to an automated phone answering system that tells you for English press __, for French press __, for Italian press __, etc. That takes much more time and only delivers you to a subsequent set of menus. You have spent perhaps 2-4 minutes of your time to get that far. Now, the company you have called has reduced costs for employing a multi-lingual operator, but each of the callers to that company have increased costs for the time that is needed to get the work done. Yes, they will save money but you will spend more and have to cover it somewhere, so the total of costs for everyone is higher because of this choice of automation. I'm sure everyone on this forum could share their own experience with an automated phone system that doesn't work or puts them in an endless loop, or . . .

Think about maquiladores and the real suffering that comes from a richer country's being blind about the social costs imposed on others by business decisions and the insane drive to maximize short-term profits and investor returns without attention to many other values.

We're people, not numbers, not machines, not pieces of paper money.

--JMM

Indeed there have been many companies lured "off-shore" by low wage rates, less onerous health and safety laws, lower taxes and all the other "perks". I have seen unsuccessful "globalizaion" attempts on more than one occasion. Either the product quality wasn't there, or there was a loss of financial control which negated all the "incentives".

There is also the export of technology, intellectual property and proprietary trade secrets that ensure that the domestic producer loses the economic battle to imported knock-offs. I've seen two companies, so far, that have sent manufacturing to China and found themselves faced with identical knock-offs from a separate, but related Chinese company.

In one case, the knock off included a ding in a plastic injection mold where someone dropped a tool on the mold for our product. Either the competitor got parts from our mold, or more likely digitally scanned our part and cut a new mold that included the tool ding.

..tell that to the former world champion of chess for example.

Go?

Ping pong?

_________

...blaming automation!?

Give me a break. Literally..

(Dangerfield R.)

Case in point:

https://www.smartindustry.com/blog/smart-industry-connect/robots-and-jobs-dont-have-to-be-at-odds/