Ignoramus15145 wrote:
On 2011-02-25, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ignoramus30447 fired this volley in
:


This is a huge concern of mine. I do think that the computer
revolution is different from the past manufacturing revolutions, in
the sense that smart enough computers simply do not leave room for any
work for people with IQ below, say, 90. And as the computers get
smarter, the cutoff IQ gets higher and higher, displacing more and
more people.


I'm not that concerned. I'm in a highly "manual" business. But besides
that, let's take those slot boxes as an example.

It took about 40 minutes per sheet to do the cutting -- more accurately,
and better in terms of fit and finish than a human operator could have
without spending 10 or 15 hours to do it. So, there's (say) 9 hours of
lost labor for one _highly_skilled_ cabinet maker.


Right.


BUT... it then takes about four hours of really good quality work to
properly assemble one, and I can make more of them. That doesn't
cheating the worker, that just increases his productivity. He can
make roughly three boxes in the time it took to make one in the
past.

Bad? Saying the worker count is now down to one in three? No. I
get to sell more. I couldn't afford to make more of them the old
way. No budget for space, no budget for additional OSHA crap... I
just would employ one worker, and make one every day and a half. If
I make three a day, I'm still employing exactly as many people as I
would have before.

No net loss of labor.


Lloyd, but in a real high production factory (not one offs), they
could have robots doing the assembly and packing, no people required.


Depends on the costs. A mate went out to see a Denso plant in what was
Eastern Europe and they had people assembling parts not robots, the
reason being the workers were cheaper than robots. The parts were engine
fuel injection system components.

And if software evolves, the same factories could do one offs from CAD
files or some such. Mass production of one offs, so to speak.

i