Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can program
a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to run
unattended.

With this CNC mill, too, I do not even care too much how long a job
would take. I just program it, double check that all the rapids are in
the areas that are milled out, start the job and walk away to do
something else. I somewhat watch the progress through a netcam, with
one eye.

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.

i

Ignoramus30447 fired this volley in
:

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.


It's also fun to "cross over".

I have a friend with a large-format CNC router. In seven years of
producing parts on it, he's never learned to design those parts himself.
Instead, he pays a programmer 100 miles away $30.00 per hour to do that.

The other day, I had a large plywood "slot box" project to do. So I
designed the parts, CAD'd it out, and took the gcode and plywood over to
his shop.

He warned me that they call the machine "Christine", because "it does
whatever it wants to do when it feels like doing it. It cuts whatever was
designed last first, then works back in reverse order, no matter how you
lay out the cuts."

HUH? I asked, "How would it know anything about my CAD files? I'm only
supplying the gcode?" He told me to "just watch", and we started the
run.

OF COURSE, it cut the sheet just the way I had optimized the toolpaths,
and he was ****ed. He accused me of delicately designing the whole sheet
in that cut order... GGG

I used the same inexpensive CAM software (CAMBAM), that I use for my WAL-
E (R2E4). Writing a post-processor for his machine was a lead pipe
cinch. (ShopSabre 9648)

LLoyd

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:50:48 -0600, Ignoramus30447
wrote:

Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can program
a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to run
unattended.

With this CNC mill, too, I do not even care too much how long a job
would take. I just program it, double check that all the rapids are in
the areas that are milled out, start the job and walk away to do
something else. I somewhat watch the progress through a netcam, with
one eye.

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.

i

One of the guys I got a machine from could sit back in a lazy boy
chair with a wireless keyboard and program looking at a projection
screen and the machine would start up in the garage.

I wish I had the training, that would be cool. plus with CNC you don't
have to locate each cut, that would be perfect for making duplicate
parts. Someday I need to pay someone to make me some chess board
pieces that are blank and generic so that I can customize them with
manual machines. That way all the pawns and other matching pieces
would be at least from the same stock size. Probably still cost a mint
for the programming, stock, shipping, and a big hour on the CNC lathe.


SW

Ignoramus30447 wrote:

Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can program
a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to run
unattended.

With this CNC mill, too, I do not even care too much how long a job
would take. I just program it, double check that all the rapids are in
the areas that are milled out, start the job and walk away to do
something else. I somewhat watch the progress through a netcam, with
one eye.

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.

i

The technology is great for you and I now, but the problem is that as
machines are able to do more tasks efficiently, there are fewer jobs for
humans, thus we have a growing population and a shrinking job market.
The idea that everyone will just get better "knowledge economy" jobs is
simply absurd. What exactly will happen when machines replace low paid
maids and housekeeping jobs? When machines replace migrant farm workers?
Can you say mobs of pitchfork wielding peasants demanding jobs and food?

On 2011-02-25, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Ignoramus30447 fired this volley in
:

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.


It's also fun to "cross over".

I have a friend with a large-format CNC router. In seven years of
producing parts on it, he's never learned to design those parts himself.
Instead, he pays a programmer 100 miles away $30.00 per hour to do that.

The other day, I had a large plywood "slot box" project to do. So I
designed the parts, CAD'd it out, and took the gcode and plywood over to
his shop.

He warned me that they call the machine "Christine", because "it does
whatever it wants to do when it feels like doing it. It cuts whatever was
designed last first, then works back in reverse order, no matter how you
lay out the cuts."

HUH? I asked, "How would it know anything about my CAD files? I'm only
supplying the gcode?" He told me to "just watch", and we started the
run.

OF COURSE, it cut the sheet just the way I had optimized the toolpaths,
and he was ****ed. He accused me of delicately designing the whole sheet
in that cut order... GGG

I used the same inexpensive CAM software (CAMBAM), that I use for my WAL-
E (R2E4). Writing a post-processor for his machine was a lead pipe
cinch. (ShopSabre 9648)

yes... it pays to learn stuff... I agree.


i

On 2011-02-25, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus30447 wrote:

Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can program
a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to run
unattended.

With this CNC mill, too, I do not even care too much how long a job
would take. I just program it, double check that all the rapids are in
the areas that are milled out, start the job and walk away to do
something else. I somewhat watch the progress through a netcam, with
one eye.

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.

i

The technology is great for you and I now, but the problem is that as
machines are able to do more tasks efficiently, there are fewer jobs for
humans, thus we have a growing population and a shrinking job market.
The idea that everyone will just get better "knowledge economy" jobs is
simply absurd. What exactly will happen when machines replace low paid
maids and housekeeping jobs? When machines replace migrant farm workers?
Can you say mobs of pitchfork wielding peasants demanding jobs and food?

Oh yes.

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

i

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.


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

Ignoramus30447 wrote:
Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can
program a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to
run unattended.

In the 80's Alvin Toffler made a PBS show (in 3 episodes I think) called The
Third Wave. His examples of the premature arrival of the future included a
Japanese man who made a living with a CNC machine in his home that made
parts for toys while he playd golf. It obviously wasn't his sole income,
but now instead of premature it looks like the future is running late.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On 2011-02-26, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Ignoramus30447 wrote:
Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can
program a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to
run unattended.

In the 80's Alvin Toffler made a PBS show (in 3 episodes I think) called The
Third Wave. His examples of the premature arrival of the future included a
Japanese man who made a living with a CNC machine in his home that made
parts for toys while he playd golf. It obviously wasn't his sole income,
but now instead of premature it looks like the future is running late.



I would like to retire, the sooner the better, and if I do, I would
like to supplement my income in this kind of manner.

i

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com writes:

Ignoramus30447 fired this volley in
:

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.


It's also fun to "cross over".

I have a friend with a large-format CNC router. In seven years of
producing parts on it, he's never learned to design those parts himself.
Instead, he pays a programmer 100 miles away $30.00 per hour to do that.

The other day, I had a large plywood "slot box" project to do. So I
designed the parts, CAD'd it out, and took the gcode and plywood over to
his shop.

He warned me that they call the machine "Christine", because "it does
whatever it wants to do when it feels like doing it. It cuts whatever was
designed last first, then works back in reverse order, no matter how you
lay out the cuts."

HUH? I asked, "How would it know anything about my CAD files? I'm only
supplying the gcode?" He told me to "just watch", and we started the
run.

OF COURSE, it cut the sheet just the way I had optimized the toolpaths,
and he was ****ed. He accused me of delicately designing the whole sheet
in that cut order... GGG

Anybody else suspect his $30/hr programmer is just putting the design
through a gcode compiler?
--
This sig block for rent

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 14:18:10 -0600, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ignoramus30447 fired this volley in
m:

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.


It's also fun to "cross over".

I have a friend with a large-format CNC router. In seven years of
producing parts on it, he's never learned to design those parts himself.
Instead, he pays a programmer 100 miles away $30.00 per hour to do that.

The other day, I had a large plywood "slot box" project to do. So I
designed the parts, CAD'd it out, and took the gcode and plywood over to
his shop.

He warned me that they call the machine "Christine", because "it does
whatever it wants to do when it feels like doing it. It cuts whatever was
designed last first, then works back in reverse order, no matter how you
lay out the cuts."

Stephen King would be proud.


HUH? I asked, "How would it know anything about my CAD files? I'm only
supplying the gcode?" He told me to "just watch", and we started the
run.

OF COURSE, it cut the sheet just the way I had optimized the toolpaths,
and he was ****ed. He accused me of delicately designing the whole sheet
in that cut order... GGG

I used the same inexpensive CAM software (CAMBAM), that I use for my WAL-
E (R2E4). Writing a post-processor for his machine was a lead pipe
cinch. (ShopSabre 9648)

How do you like the ShopSabre?

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London

Larry Jaques fired this volley in
:

How do you like the ShopSabre?

It does decent work.(+) Its base price is fairly low.(+) It looks "shop
built".(-) After you add the necessary accessories, like the recommended
(no, really necessary) Italian router head, and the 20HP ring compressor
vacuum system, you're up around $22K, before you start to acquire things
like phase converters, if you don't have 3-phase power.(-)

I am not sure I'd buy one new (guess I would, if I needed it), but I
would certainly own one that had been cared for properly at (say) half
the new price.

LLoyd

"Ignoramus30447" wrote in message
...
On 2011-02-25, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus30447 wrote:

Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can program
a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to run
unattended.

With this CNC mill, too, I do not even care too much how long a job
would take. I just program it, double check that all the rapids are in
the areas that are milled out, start the job and walk away to do
something else. I somewhat watch the progress through a netcam, with
one eye.

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.

i

The technology is great for you and I now, but the problem is that as
machines are able to do more tasks efficiently, there are fewer jobs for
humans, thus we have a growing population and a shrinking job market.
The idea that everyone will just get better "knowledge economy" jobs is
simply absurd. What exactly will happen when machines replace low paid
maids and housekeeping jobs? When machines replace migrant farm workers?
Can you say mobs of pitchfork wielding peasants demanding jobs and food?

Oh yes.

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

i

We just started running a shop-built computer controlled machine to make wire wheels.
It does FIVE times the production of a manual machine (exactly as projected) and we
can train operators in less than 10 minutes. (Put part "A" in position "B" and push
button "C") The union is upset because running the machine displaces four workers and
requires no extraordinary skill or pay level. And, the machine tracks production
real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of privacy.)

Tom Gardner wrote:

We just started running a shop-built computer controlled machine to make wire wheels.
It does FIVE times the production of a manual machine (exactly as projected) and we
can train operators in less than 10 minutes. (Put part "A" in position "B" and push
button "C") The union is upset because running the machine displaces four workers and
requires no extraordinary skill or pay level. And, the machine tracks production
real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of privacy.)


More like an evasion of stupidity. ;-)


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

On 2011-02-27, Tom Gardner dshhy@mjst wrote:
We just started running a shop-built computer controlled machine to make wire wheels.
It does FIVE times the production of a manual machine (exactly as projected) and we
can train operators in less than 10 minutes. (Put part "A" in position "B" and push
button "C") The union is upset because running the machine displaces four workers and
requires no extraordinary skill or pay level. And, the machine tracks production
real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of privacy.)

Exactly. And that is a very good thing, and it is inevitable in
competitive environment (if you did not switch to this machine, you
would be put out of business). I personally love that sort of stuff
that does things automatically, with all my heart.

In the past "industrial revolutions", displaced workers could find
other jobs. I kind of agree with Lloyd who said something similar to
this and gave some examples of what people still have to do manually
to make stuff.

What I am not so sure about, is whether the past lessons apply to the
future.

I think that automation went so far, that most people with the IQ
below some level can be replaced with computers. (say, IQ of 85
now). In the past, they could always have a job, like answering a
phone or working on a conveyor or whatever. And now a computer could
do all that work.

That alone could be worked out, maybe we can somehow keep such people
afloat in one way or another. But what about 20 years later, when
computers could displace workers with IQ under 90? 95? etc?

I am very bothered by this and am worried what kind of society my kids
will live in. Of course, I want them to be in the better part of
society, but in any case I am worried and who knows how they will turn
out.

Also, I do not think that it is only a future issue: I think that the
increasing disparity in pay, and stagnating salaries of low income
employees, are due to the above described process of people being
displaced by computers.

i
i
i

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.

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

Ignoramus15145 wrote:

(...)

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.

That's already happening with PC boards.
You send your Gerbers off to an aggregator
and he nests your boards with those of many
other designers all on to the same panel.
When sufficient are accumulated, boards are
made and shipped. It's cheap.

--Winston

"Ignoramus15145" wrote in message
...
On 2011-02-27, Tom Gardner dshhy@mjst wrote:
We just started running a shop-built computer controlled machine to make
wire wheels.
It does FIVE times the production of a manual machine (exactly as
projected) and we
can train operators in less than 10 minutes. (Put part "A" in position
"B" and push
button "C") The union is upset because running the machine displaces
four workers and
requires no extraordinary skill or pay level. And, the machine tracks
production
real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's
going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of
privacy.)

Exactly. And that is a very good thing, and it is inevitable in
competitive environment (if you did not switch to this machine, you
would be put out of business). I personally love that sort of stuff
that does things automatically, with all my heart.

In the past "industrial revolutions", displaced workers could find
other jobs. I kind of agree with Lloyd who said something similar to
this and gave some examples of what people still have to do manually
to make stuff.

What I am not so sure about, is whether the past lessons apply to the
future.

I think that automation went so far, that most people with the IQ
below some level can be replaced with computers. (say, IQ of 85
now). In the past, they could always have a job, like answering a
phone or working on a conveyor or whatever. And now a computer could
do all that work.

That alone could be worked out, maybe we can somehow keep such people
afloat in one way or another. But what about 20 years later, when
computers could displace workers with IQ under 90? 95? etc?

I am very bothered by this and am worried what kind of society my kids
will live in. Of course, I want them to be in the better part of
society, but in any case I am worried and who knows how they will turn
out.

Also, I do not think that it is only a future issue: I think that the
increasing disparity in pay, and stagnating salaries of low income
employees, are due to the above described process of people being
displaced by computers.

This issue has been the subject of study and speculation for a long time in
the field of labor economics. Until the late '70s, it was assumed by many
that work weeks would keep getting shorter while incomes grew -- the result
of improving automation and its consequence, which was lower production
costs. That was a time when the US was headed toward social democracy.
Gunnar Myrdal's _Beyond the Welfare State_ (1960 or so) was sort of the
guidebook for social democratic thinking.

Alas, work weeks stayed the same. Part of the problem is that we grew out of
our houses trying to store all of the crap that we made and bought. d8-) But
the big issue was that we were never inclined to control the disposition of
capital. Now, with globalization, it would be impossible to do so.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus15145" wrote in message
...
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.

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

Back in the mid-late 1980's a co-worker told me about his training on sharp
copiers. The first human to touch the copy machine was after the after the
box was opened. But I'll bet they employed some maintenance technicians to
keep the automatic equipment working. I think Cliff was obsolete when they
came out with the magic 8 ball :-)

RogerN

On 2011-02-27, RogerN wrote:
"Ignoramus15145" wrote in message
...
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.

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

Back in the mid-late 1980's a co-worker told me about his training on sharp
copiers. The first human to touch the copy machine was after the after the
box was opened. But I'll bet they employed some maintenance technicians to
keep the automatic equipment working. I think Cliff was obsolete when they
came out with the magic 8 ball :-)


I heard that the Japanese plant that makes robots (was it Motoman? or
Fanuc) runs completely lights out,someone stops by once in a while to
sweep the dust etc. I am sure tha tthey need engineers and repairmen,
though. I can try to dig up some info.

Looks like it is Fanuc.

i

On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 23:01:51 -0600, Ignoramus15145 wrote:
On 2011-02-27, Tom Gardner dshhy@mjst wrote:
We just started running a shop-built computer controlled machine to
make wire wheels. It does FIVE times the production of a manual machine
(exactly as projected) and we can train operators in less than 10
minutes. (Put part "A" in position "B" and push button "C") The union
is upset because running the machine displaces four workers and
requires no extraordinary skill or pay level. And, the machine tracks
production real-time and is connected to the network so we can see
exactly what's going on from the office. (The union hates that too,
they say it's an invasion of privacy.)

Exactly. And that is a very good thing, and it is inevitable in
competitive environment (if you did not switch to this machine, you
would be put out of business). I personally love that sort of stuff that
does things automatically, with all my heart.

In the past "industrial revolutions", displaced workers could find other
jobs. I kind of agree with Lloyd who said something similar to this and
gave some examples of what people still have to do manually to make
stuff.
....
I think that automation went so far, that most people with the IQ below
some level can be replaced with computers. (say, IQ of 85 now). In the
past, they could always have a job, like answering a phone or working on
a conveyor or whatever. And now a computer could do all that work.

That alone could be worked out, maybe we can somehow keep such people
afloat in one way or another. But what about 20 years later, when
computers could displace workers with IQ under 90? 95? etc?
....

I think your model of a gradually-rising lower threshold on IQ will
prove incorrect in the long run. Much manual labor is mechanically
complex and expensive to automate. From a business point of view,
computers can be more profitably aimed at the many medium-pay,
medium-IQ jobs, rather than the many low-paying, low-IQ jobs or the
few high-paying, high-IQ jobs. In any case, as computer memory and
cpu cycles drop in cost, more and more office jobs will be at risk.

--
jiw

In article ,
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

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.

Only in the bogus case that there is infinite demand for cabinets. The
net loss of labor doesn't happen to be at your shop, unless your
competition gets a better robot than yours and underbids you for the
undoubtedly finite number of cabinets needed in your area. Then you need
to get a better robot than they have, or kiss business goodbye.
Eventually somebody ends up with as much cabinet robot as the market
will bear, and everybody else is out of business.

--
Cats, coffee, chocolate...vices to live by

Tom Gardner wrote:
.... And, the machine tracks
production real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly
what's going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of
privacy.)

Adult people don't bitch about "privacy" when they're using their employer's
equipment - the boss has the right to do whatever he wishes to do with his
own property!

But unions are nothing but a bunch of crybaby extortionists.

Thanks,
Rich

Tom Gardner wrote:

real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of privacy.)

You would prefer to be able
to screw your employees
and none can even speak about it

And you expect these screwed employees with
no voice to be loyal?

jim wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of privacy.)

You would prefer to be able
to screw your employees
and none can even speak about it

And you expect these screwed employees with
no voice to be loyal?


How many employees do you have? Or are you on welfare?


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

jim wrote:
...
real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's
going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of
privacy.)

You would prefer to be able
to screw your employees
and none can even speak about it

So, you think "not being allowed to steal" is being "screwed?"

You're a symptom of the disease that's destroying America.

GFY
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:

jim wrote:
..
real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's
going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of
privacy.)

You would prefer to be able
to screw your employees
and none can even speak about it

So, you think "not being allowed to steal" is being "screwed?"

You're a symptom of the disease that's destroying America.

My response may well be the symptom but you apparently are the disease

Remind me.
where did I say something about stealing?




GFY
Rich

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

jim wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

real-time and is connected to the network so we can see exactly what's going on from
the office. (The union hates that too, they say it's an invasion of privacy.)

You would prefer to be able
to screw your employees
and none can even speak about it

And you expect these screwed employees with
no voice to be loyal?

How many employees do you have? Or are you on welfare?

I will tell you this much I would never go to work
for a company that had union employees
It tells me a lot about the employer

jim wrote:

I will tell you this much I would never go to work
for a company that had union employees
It tells me a lot about the employer

It tells more about the corrupt unions than anything else.

Frequently where the unions are you find that there were no problems
with the employer, but rather low skilled workers who were gullible
enough to be scammed by union recruiters into joining the union and
paying union dues while not seeing any actual benefit.

I recall seeing some reports where workers are some large foreign owned
auto plants in the US were cheering after once again defeating attempts
by a corrupt union to impose themselves on the workers. Unions hate
these non union competitors and will do anything and everything they can
to cause trouble at such plants, since these plants are proof that
unions do not benefit the workers.

"Pete C." wrote:

jim wrote:
?
? I will tell you this much I would never go to work
? for a company that had union employees
? It tells me a lot about the employer

It tells more about the corrupt unions than anything else.

Some unions may be corrupt but
many employers are corrupt or incompetent
Unions exist where employees are treated like chattel
If a business can't get along with its workers
and goes out of business as a result
that is just one consequence of free market economics


Frequently where the unions are you find that there were no problems
with the employer, but rather low skilled workers who were gullible
enough to be scammed by union recruiters into joining the union and
paying union dues while not seeing any actual benefit.

employees don't vote for unions where there is already good
communication
The japanese automakers have numerous plants in the US
and those assembly plants aren't unionized
No unions because the employees think
unions are not needed to communicate

Toyota has in profitable years paid their assembly plant workers
better than Detroit UAW workers
And Toyota workers would join a union in a heart-beat if Toyota
treated there employees like GM has

Unions are a waste of productivity
but they are a necessary evil when you have bad management



I recall seeing some reports where workers are some large foreign owned
auto plants in the US were cheering after once again defeating attempts
by a corrupt union to impose themselves on the workers.

Nah your not even close.
Unions don't impose themselves on anybody
Employees can choose by democratic elections
to have an agent represent them.
Do you think movie stars have agents forced upon them?
If the union exist it is because the majority wants it to




Unions hate
these non union competitors and will do anything and everything they can
to cause trouble at such plants, since these plants are proof that
unions do not benefit the workers.

These plants are evidence of good management
They are evidence of good lines of communication
between employee and employer
those plants have gained market share
because they are more productive
And team work is the biggest part of that

Nobody likes working for incompetent management

On 02/25/2011 01:50 PM, Ignoramus30447 wrote:
Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can program
a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to run
unattended.

With this CNC mill, too, I do not even care too much how long a job
would take. I just program it, double check that all the rapids are in
the areas that are milled out, start the job and walk away to do
something else. I somewhat watch the progress through a netcam, with
one eye.

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.

i
I used to make instrument panels and housings from aluminum sheet. I
used to mark out the general outline with Dy-Kem, just to prevent dumb
errors and then cut it with the handwheels on my 1938 Bridgeport. Due
to differential wear in the center of the Acme screws, screw holes would
not line up, etc.

Then, I got a set of Bridgeport optical readouts with the mirrored
scales and projection viewer boxes, and suddenly, when I made something
that had a cover that went on it, the screw holes lined up without
filing! That was great, but it was still REALLY tedious to cut out a
dozen slots manually. if I went past the dimension a little in one
place, it would leave a big gouge and I had to start over.

Now, with CNC, I don't spend hours slaving over one panel and worrying
that one little slipup will ruin the part.

I don't run my machine unattended, but then the pieces I work on
typically don't take very long to make, generally just 3-5 minutes per
part. Most of the time is preparation, setup and cleanup.

Jon

On 2011-02-28, Jon Elson wrote:
On 02/25/2011 01:50 PM, Ignoramus30447 wrote:
Is the same thing that I love about computers in general. I can program
a computer to do something that I want, automatically, and to run
unattended.

With this CNC mill, too, I do not even care too much how long a job
would take. I just program it, double check that all the rapids are in
the areas that are milled out, start the job and walk away to do
something else. I somewhat watch the progress through a netcam, with
one eye.

This is just so awesome, to have a mill do my job, precisely the same
way every time.

i
I used to make instrument panels and housings from aluminum sheet. I
used to mark out the general outline with Dy-Kem, just to prevent dumb
errors and then cut it with the handwheels on my 1938 Bridgeport. Due
to differential wear in the center of the Acme screws, screw holes would
not line up, etc.

Then, I got a set of Bridgeport optical readouts with the mirrored
scales and projection viewer boxes, and suddenly, when I made something
that had a cover that went on it, the screw holes lined up without
filing! That was great, but it was still REALLY tedious to cut out a
dozen slots manually. if I went past the dimension a little in one
place, it would leave a big gouge and I had to start over.

Now, with CNC, I don't spend hours slaving over one panel and worrying
that one little slipup will ruin the part.

I don't run my machine unattended, but then the pieces I work on
typically don't take very long to make, generally just 3-5 minutes per
part. Most of the time is preparation, setup and cleanup.

Jon


Which brings up a related question: how do you fixture those panels?

i

jim wrote:
"Pete C." wrote:
jim wrote:
?
? I will tell you this much I would never go to work
? for a company that had union employees
? It tells me a lot about the employer

It tells more about the corrupt unions than anything else.

Some unions may be corrupt but
many employers are corrupt or incompetent
Unions exist where employees are treated like chattel...

That's what the door is for.

Thanks,
Rich

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