Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.

Foxconn Plans to Replace Nearly All Human Workers With Robots in Some Factories

posted by janrinok on Monday January 02 2017, @11:56PM   Printer-friendly
from the employees-will-now-lead-lives-of-leisure dept.

takyon writes:

Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturer of Apple's iPhones and other electronic devices, aims to replace human workers with "FoxBots" and achieve nearly full automation of entire factories:

The slow and steady march of manufacturing automation has been in place at Foxconn for years. The company said last year that it had set a benchmark of 30 percent automation at its Chinese factories by 2020. The company can now produce around 10,000 Foxbots a year, Jia-peng says, all of which can be used to replace human labor. In March, Foxconn said it had automated away 60,000 jobs at one of its factories.

[...] Complicating the matter is the Chinese government, which has incentivized human employment in the country. In areas like Chengdu, Shenzhen, and Zhengzhou, local governments have doled out billions of dollars in bonuses, energy contracts, and public infrastructure to Foxconn to allow the company to expand. As of last year, Foxconn employed as many as 1.2 million people, making it one of the largest employers in the world. More than 1 million of those workers reside in China, often at elaborate, city-like campuses that house and feed employees.

In an in-depth report published yesterday, The New York Times detailed these government incentivizes for Foxconn's Zhengzhou factory, its largest and most capable plant that produces 500,000 iPhones a day and is known locally as "iPhone City." According to Foxconn's Jia-peng, the Zhengzhou factory has some production lines already at the second automation phase and on track to become fully automated in a few years' time. So it may not be long before one of China's largest employers will be forced to grapple with its automation ambitions and the benefits it receives to transform rural parts of the country into industrial powerhouses.

To undermine American manufacturing, ditch the meatbags.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Foxconn Plans to Replace Nearly All Human Workers With Robots in Some Factories | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 77 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:34AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:34AM (#449165) Journal
    I'll just note here that global income [voxeu.org] is increasing above inflation at a substantial rate (two thirds of humanity grew their income by 30% or more over a recent 20 year period, the median global income rose by more than 60%). The world is nothing like your narrative.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 04 2017, @10:19AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday January 04 2017, @10:19AM (#449292) Homepage
    I made no mention of income at all. Your argument is now nothing like my argument, and nothing like your previous argument either. You're clearly floundering. Have you ever heard the saying that if you're stuck in a hole you should stop digging? I'd remind you of that again, but I'm not sure you can hear me down there.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:40PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:40PM (#449328) Journal
      My point is that increasing wages on a global scale indicates either a drop in the supply of labor (which is obviously not happening in the developing world) or an enormous increase in demand for labor. That's standard supply and demand.
      ,=
      So it doesn't matter whether "primary industries" employ more people or not. It doesn't matter that you are concerned about imaginary job loss. It doesn't matter that you have the unfounded opinion that a menial laborer somehow can't find another job. Reality disagrees.

      Have you ever heard the saying that if you're stuck in a hole you should stop digging?

      Back at you.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:55PM

        by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:55PM (#449398) Homepage
        Thus spake someone with absolutely no understanding of Simpson's Paradox.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:31AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:31AM (#449600) Journal

          Thus spake someone with absolutely no understanding of Simpson's Paradox.

          You want to go there? Because I'm pretty sure you're the one having trouble with Simpson's paradox:

          Simpson's paradox, or the Yule–Simpson effect, is a paradox in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined.

          I'm merely noting trends in global data, all of humanity, while I'm pretty sure that you're making absolute claims about the global data from either a very constrained or even imaginary data set. That's a standard consequence of "having trouble" with Simpson's paradox.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:02PM

            by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:02PM (#449747) Homepage
            You're looking at aggregate data rather than the individual components. *Textbook* Simpsons.

            I've shown you your mistake several times, please stop digging.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 06 2017, @01:02AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 06 2017, @01:02AM (#450025) Journal

              You're looking at aggregate data rather than the individual components.

              Which is of course the appropriate thing to do when you're looking at the whole of humanity. Recall please that was the scope.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 06 2017, @01:28AM

                by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Friday January 06 2017, @01:28AM (#450032) Homepage
                NO, BECAUSE OF SIMPSON'S PARADOX.

                I SAID YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT AT THE OUTSET, DIDN'T I, AND YOU'VE PROVED THAT BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT.

                YOU ARE STUPID, AND YOU REFUSE TO LEARN.

                *PLONK*
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 06 2017, @04:59AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 06 2017, @04:59AM (#450101) Journal
                  Do you have a point to this? Because so far it's been a waste of my time. Really, I get the logic of components and whole. It's not too late for you to present a real argument.