SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The "real" challenge technology presents isn't that it replaces workers, but rather displaces them.
The robots perform tasks that humans previously performed. The fear is that they are replacing human jobs, eliminating work in distribution centers and elsewhere in the economy. It is not hard to imagine that technology might be a major factor causing persistent unemployment today and threatening “more to come.”
Surprisingly, the managers of distribution centers and supply chains see things rather differently: in surveys they report that they can’t hire enough workers, at least not enough workers who have the necessary skills to deal with new technology. “Supply chain” is the term for the systems used to move products from suppliers to customers. Warehouse robots are not the first technology taking over some of the tasks of supply chain workers, nor are they even seen as the most important technology affecting the industry today.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/scarce-skills-not-scarce-jobs/390789/
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:41PM
You misunderstand what was said:
Welty, the CEO of Quiet Logistics: "If you had to replace the robots with people, how many people would you have to hire?" Welty estimates that he would have to hire one and a half people for every robot, and that the robots are saving him a lot of money.
Its not robots PLUS People, it was Robots OR people.
He said, in effect, that a robot replaces 1.5 people, and the robot is cheaper than 1.5 people.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:46PM
Think of it this way the robot does the work of 20 people and does it perfectly. But you still need 3 people for every 2 robots you buy. Half a person is an economics aberration. You either hire someone or you dont.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday April 29 2015, @08:13PM
Think of it this way the robot does the work of 20 people and does it perfectly. But you still need 3 people for every 2 robots you buy. Half a person is an economics aberration. You either hire someone or you dont.
That is not what is being talked about in this context. Read TFA, or at least read the full quote to which you replied.
The TFA clearly posed the situation of replacing robots.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by RamiK on Wednesday April 29 2015, @08:25PM
Seems starting outside of context (the question asked) since it's more interesting to show the fallacy there and then moving to the obvious fallacy is too confusing despite the fact I selectively quoted the answer alone.
Let me rephrase things more explicitly by starting with the less interesting interpretation:
In context of the questions, if we're to take "and that the robots are saving him a lot of money", then it's wrong to say the job the 1 robot performs can be done by 1.5 humans since the added cost of wages/facilities/whatever far* exceeds that.
Taking his answer outside of the context of the question seeing as it's the only alternate interpretation: If a robot + 1.5 humans are replacing a single human netting in profit then a skilled labor have been transformed into a low paying manual labor meaning the job is now terribly difficult, tedious and boring.
*Carefully using the "far" quantifier keeping in mind he said "saving him a lot of money" and not just "saving him money".
compiling...