Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 7th 15, 10:34 AM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2011
Posts: 897
Default OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:01:17 -0500, Ignoramus26399
wrote:

On 2015-06-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw....the unemployment figures are growing again..particularly in
places that have instituted that $15 min wage.


I am convinced that $15 minimum wage is a disaster for cities that
adopt them, because it will decimate low income communities through
unemployment and crime.

I am very interested in what happend to Los Angeles a few years after
their new minimum wage goes into effect.

Generally, robots will replace low income people anywhere, but not as
fast as where a high minimum wage is adopted.

After all, a robot can flip burgers pretty well!

i


If a robot can flip burgers, it won't make a damned bit of difference
what humans are making in wages. They're done, whether it's in five
years or five years and six months.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stop automation. And what wages are
being paid has nothing to do with it. The technology has it's own
pace.


But, I suspect that labour costs do have an influence on how quickly
robots will be added to the work force. If the robot is, say a half a
million dollars, and labour is $1.10 an hour then management looks at
the robot as something to be added in the future 1 robot=155 years of
labour. If labour is $15.00 an hour than the utilization of a robotic
work force becomes a much more important factor. 1 robot = 11.4 years.
--
cheers,

John B.


  #2   Report Post  
Old June 7th 15, 03:11 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,540
Default OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:34:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:01:17 -0500, Ignoramus26399
wrote:

On 2015-06-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw....the unemployment figures are growing again..particularly in
places that have instituted that $15 min wage.


I am convinced that $15 minimum wage is a disaster for cities that
adopt them, because it will decimate low income communities through
unemployment and crime.

I am very interested in what happend to Los Angeles a few years after
their new minimum wage goes into effect.

Generally, robots will replace low income people anywhere, but not as
fast as where a high minimum wage is adopted.

After all, a robot can flip burgers pretty well!

i


If a robot can flip burgers, it won't make a damned bit of difference
what humans are making in wages. They're done, whether it's in five
years or five years and six months.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stop automation. And what wages are
being paid has nothing to do with it. The technology has it's own
pace.


But, I suspect that labour costs do have an influence on how quickly
robots will be added to the work force. If the robot is, say a half a
million dollars, and labour is $1.10 an hour then management looks at
the robot as something to be added in the future 1 robot=155 years of
labour. If labour is $15.00 an hour than the utilization of a robotic
work force becomes a much more important factor. 1 robot = 11.4 years.


But it just doesn't work that way in practice, John. Over the years
I've done dozens of stories on robots and other automation, visiting
and interviewing the managers who actually are doing it. The usual
scenario, in manufacturing, involves making a big operational change,
usually to expand capacity or to get more production out of existing
resources. That simple wages vs. investment calculation that many
people think is the determinant is not it. It is so trivial, compared
to the total costs and operational disruptions involved, that it
hardly gets a nod.

Further, implementing robots usually doesn't involve laying people
off. Most often, the influence on employment is about people who are
*not hired*, sometime in the future. It has a strong effect over time,
but it's not a straight, immediate substitution.

In services, automation is implemented mostly through IT, not through
mechanical hardware. That's a different scenario and I don't have much
direct experience with it.

--
Ed Huntress
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 7th 15, 05:10 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Mar 2012
Posts: 3,797
Default OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 2:34:58 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:01:17 -0500, Ignoramus26399
wrote:

On 2015-06-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw....the unemployment figures are growing again..particularly in
places that have instituted that $15 min wage.


I am convinced that $15 minimum wage is a disaster for cities that
adopt them, because it will decimate low income communities through
unemployment and crime.

I am very interested in what happend to Los Angeles a few years after
their new minimum wage goes into effect.

Generally, robots will replace low income people anywhere, but not as
fast as where a high minimum wage is adopted.

After all, a robot can flip burgers pretty well!

i


If a robot can flip burgers, it won't make a damned bit of difference
what humans are making in wages. They're done, whether it's in five
years or five years and six months.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stop automation. And what wages are
being paid has nothing to do with it. The technology has it's own
pace.


But, I suspect that labour costs do have an influence on how quickly
robots will be added to the work force. If the robot is, say a half a
million dollars, and labour is $1.10 an hour then management looks at
the robot as something to be added in the future 1 robot=155 years of
labour. If labour is $15.00 an hour than the utilization of a robotic
work force becomes a much more important factor. 1 robot = 11.4 years.
--
cheers,

John B.


Moron. In-N-Out Burger starts new employes at close to $11 dollars an hour.

In-N-Out Burger's owner is a female and is worth over a Billion dollars.
  #4   Report Post  
Old June 8th 15, 02:00 AM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2011
Posts: 897
Default OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 10:11:44 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:34:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:01:17 -0500, Ignoramus26399
wrote:

On 2015-06-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw....the unemployment figures are growing again..particularly in
places that have instituted that $15 min wage.


I am convinced that $15 minimum wage is a disaster for cities that
adopt them, because it will decimate low income communities through
unemployment and crime.

I am very interested in what happend to Los Angeles a few years after
their new minimum wage goes into effect.

Generally, robots will replace low income people anywhere, but not as
fast as where a high minimum wage is adopted.

After all, a robot can flip burgers pretty well!

i

If a robot can flip burgers, it won't make a damned bit of difference
what humans are making in wages. They're done, whether it's in five
years or five years and six months.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stop automation. And what wages are
being paid has nothing to do with it. The technology has it's own
pace.


But, I suspect that labour costs do have an influence on how quickly
robots will be added to the work force. If the robot is, say a half a
million dollars, and labour is $1.10 an hour then management looks at
the robot as something to be added in the future 1 robot=155 years of
labour. If labour is $15.00 an hour than the utilization of a robotic
work force becomes a much more important factor. 1 robot = 11.4 years.


But it just doesn't work that way in practice, John. Over the years
I've done dozens of stories on robots and other automation, visiting
and interviewing the managers who actually are doing it. The usual
scenario, in manufacturing, involves making a big operational change,
usually to expand capacity or to get more production out of existing
resources. That simple wages vs. investment calculation that many
people think is the determinant is not it. It is so trivial, compared
to the total costs and operational disruptions involved, that it
hardly gets a nod.


But I didn't say that labour cost was what drives the change over
merely that labour cost may well influence it. And I think that I am
probably correct that cost is a large factor that is taken into
consideration.

Some years ago I did some research on materials moving (conveyer belts
mostly) methods here in Thailand and in the process came across some
companies that were making "robots" for some of the car plants here.
Labour costs would have been in the 100 - 150 baht/day range then and
in every case the robots" were designed to do a single job more
consistently than doing it by hand. One I remember was a robot to weld
the axle tubes into a differential housing. It was faster than a human
but, according to the robot maker, the importance was that it didn't
make any bad welds :-)

Further, implementing robots usually doesn't involve laying people
off. Most often, the influence on employment is about people who are
*not hired*, sometime in the future. It has a strong effect over time,
but it's not a straight, immediate substitution.


Again, I didn't say that. However, unless the U.S. is different from
the rest of the world, the cost of making the product is a very
important factor in whether the company is viable, or not, and almost
without exception labour costs are the first item looked at when a
company is feeling a money crunch.

In services, automation is implemented mostly through IT, not through
mechanical hardware. That's a different scenario and I don't have much
direct experience with it.

--
cheers,

John B.

  #5   Report Post  
Old June 8th 15, 02:32 AM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,540
Default OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:00:06 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 10:11:44 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:34:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:01:17 -0500, Ignoramus26399
wrote:

On 2015-06-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw....the unemployment figures are growing again..particularly in
places that have instituted that $15 min wage.


I am convinced that $15 minimum wage is a disaster for cities that
adopt them, because it will decimate low income communities through
unemployment and crime.

I am very interested in what happend to Los Angeles a few years after
their new minimum wage goes into effect.

Generally, robots will replace low income people anywhere, but not as
fast as where a high minimum wage is adopted.

After all, a robot can flip burgers pretty well!

i

If a robot can flip burgers, it won't make a damned bit of difference
what humans are making in wages. They're done, whether it's in five
years or five years and six months.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stop automation. And what wages are
being paid has nothing to do with it. The technology has it's own
pace.

But, I suspect that labour costs do have an influence on how quickly
robots will be added to the work force. If the robot is, say a half a
million dollars, and labour is $1.10 an hour then management looks at
the robot as something to be added in the future 1 robot=155 years of
labour. If labour is $15.00 an hour than the utilization of a robotic
work force becomes a much more important factor. 1 robot = 11.4 years.


But it just doesn't work that way in practice, John. Over the years
I've done dozens of stories on robots and other automation, visiting
and interviewing the managers who actually are doing it. The usual
scenario, in manufacturing, involves making a big operational change,
usually to expand capacity or to get more production out of existing
resources. That simple wages vs. investment calculation that many
people think is the determinant is not it. It is so trivial, compared
to the total costs and operational disruptions involved, that it
hardly gets a nod.


But I didn't say that labour cost was what drives the change over
merely that labour cost may well influence it. And I think that I am
probably correct that cost is a large factor that is taken into
consideration.

Some years ago I did some research on materials moving (conveyer belts
mostly) methods here in Thailand and in the process came across some
companies that were making "robots" for some of the car plants here.
Labour costs would have been in the 100 - 150 baht/day range then and
in every case the robots" were designed to do a single job more
consistently than doing it by hand. One I remember was a robot to weld
the axle tubes into a differential housing. It was faster than a human
but, according to the robot maker, the importance was that it didn't
make any bad welds :-)

Further, implementing robots usually doesn't involve laying people
off. Most often, the influence on employment is about people who are
*not hired*, sometime in the future. It has a strong effect over time,
but it's not a straight, immediate substitution.


Again, I didn't say that. However, unless the U.S. is different from
the rest of the world, the cost of making the product is a very
important factor in whether the company is viable, or not, and almost
without exception labour costs are the first item looked at when a
company is feeling a money crunch.

In services, automation is implemented mostly through IT, not through
mechanical hardware. That's a different scenario and I don't have much
direct experience with it.


First, yes, quality is a major reason for automating in advanced
manufacturing countries. Speaking just of manufacturing, it's far
ahead of direct-labor savings.

In the US, as in the rest of the developed world, direct labor is
roughly 10% of the cost of producing a car. It's been that way for
decades. It was 12% when I started in this business, in the mid-'70s.

So direct labor savings is not a big issue. Any single step of
automating can save only a trivial amount of direct labor. The big
motivations are quality, squeezing more out of existing resources
(such as eliminating a branched assembly line, with spot-welders),
expanding without the need for a third shift (always expensive and
defect-prone with humans), avoiding outsourcing, avoiing hiring
additional people, and so on. Direct labor savings in *existing
production* is 'way down the list.

It gets complicated these days because most of the part-making and
subassembly is pushed down to the Tiers of the supply chain. But the
same motivators apply there, as well as at the OEMs.

These facts are widely misunderstood.

--
Ed Huntress


  #6   Report Post  
Old June 8th 15, 02:04 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2011
Posts: 897
Default OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 21:32:47 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:00:06 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 10:11:44 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:34:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:01:17 -0500, Ignoramus26399
wrote:

On 2015-06-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw....the unemployment figures are growing again..particularly in
places that have instituted that $15 min wage.


I am convinced that $15 minimum wage is a disaster for cities that
adopt them, because it will decimate low income communities through
unemployment and crime.

I am very interested in what happend to Los Angeles a few years after
their new minimum wage goes into effect.

Generally, robots will replace low income people anywhere, but not as
fast as where a high minimum wage is adopted.

After all, a robot can flip burgers pretty well!

i

If a robot can flip burgers, it won't make a damned bit of difference
what humans are making in wages. They're done, whether it's in five
years or five years and six months.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stop automation. And what wages are
being paid has nothing to do with it. The technology has it's own
pace.

But, I suspect that labour costs do have an influence on how quickly
robots will be added to the work force. If the robot is, say a half a
million dollars, and labour is $1.10 an hour then management looks at
the robot as something to be added in the future 1 robot=155 years of
labour. If labour is $15.00 an hour than the utilization of a robotic
work force becomes a much more important factor. 1 robot = 11.4 years.

But it just doesn't work that way in practice, John. Over the years
I've done dozens of stories on robots and other automation, visiting
and interviewing the managers who actually are doing it. The usual
scenario, in manufacturing, involves making a big operational change,
usually to expand capacity or to get more production out of existing
resources. That simple wages vs. investment calculation that many
people think is the determinant is not it. It is so trivial, compared
to the total costs and operational disruptions involved, that it
hardly gets a nod.


But I didn't say that labour cost was what drives the change over
merely that labour cost may well influence it. And I think that I am
probably correct that cost is a large factor that is taken into
consideration.

Some years ago I did some research on materials moving (conveyer belts
mostly) methods here in Thailand and in the process came across some
companies that were making "robots" for some of the car plants here.
Labour costs would have been in the 100 - 150 baht/day range then and
in every case the robots" were designed to do a single job more
consistently than doing it by hand. One I remember was a robot to weld
the axle tubes into a differential housing. It was faster than a human
but, according to the robot maker, the importance was that it didn't
make any bad welds :-)

Further, implementing robots usually doesn't involve laying people
off. Most often, the influence on employment is about people who are
*not hired*, sometime in the future. It has a strong effect over time,
but it's not a straight, immediate substitution.


Again, I didn't say that. However, unless the U.S. is different from
the rest of the world, the cost of making the product is a very
important factor in whether the company is viable, or not, and almost
without exception labour costs are the first item looked at when a
company is feeling a money crunch.

In services, automation is implemented mostly through IT, not through
mechanical hardware. That's a different scenario and I don't have much
direct experience with it.


First, yes, quality is a major reason for automating in advanced
manufacturing countries. Speaking just of manufacturing, it's far
ahead of direct-labor savings.

In the US, as in the rest of the developed world, direct labor is
roughly 10% of the cost of producing a car. It's been that way for
decades. It was 12% when I started in this business, in the mid-'70s.

So direct labor savings is not a big issue. Any single step of
automating can save only a trivial amount of direct labor. The big
motivations are quality, squeezing more out of existing resources
(such as eliminating a branched assembly line, with spot-welders),
expanding without the need for a third shift (always expensive and
defect-prone with humans), avoiding outsourcing, avoiing hiring
additional people, and so on. Direct labor savings in *existing
production* is 'way down the list.

It gets complicated these days because most of the part-making and
subassembly is pushed down to the Tiers of the supply chain. But the
same motivators apply there, as well as at the OEMs.


Yes. I went to an auto exposition, or some such name, in Bangkok a few
years ago and discovered that there are Thai companies that are making
such things as complete front suspension modules for export.
apparently to "foreign" car makers.

Re labour costs.

Direct labor costs in manufacturing, may well be 10% of total cost but
that is only one side of the coin.

What is the labour cost factor in running a Macdonald's? Or a factory
making shirts. Or an airline? Recently Thai International, who have
been a drag on the government for years, got called on the carpet by
the new government. Apparently told that they had to start pulling
their own weight the first thing that they did was announce that there
would be a reduction in manpower. 5,000 job cuts.

Malaysian Airline who have apparently been factually bankrupt for
years now and supported by government "loans" have seemingly been
kicked out of the nest and now have to fly by themselves,. They have
hired some hot-shot European Manager to save them and the first
move.... cut personnel. "the carrier slashed 6,000 jobs as part of
plans to recover from deadly disasters and a long run of red ink".

These facts are widely misunderstood.

--
cheers,

John B.

  #7   Report Post  
Old June 8th 15, 07:13 PM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,540
Default OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:04:02 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 21:32:47 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:00:06 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 10:11:44 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:34:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:01:17 -0500, Ignoramus26399
wrote:

On 2015-06-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw....the unemployment figures are growing again..particularly in
places that have instituted that $15 min wage.


I am convinced that $15 minimum wage is a disaster for cities that
adopt them, because it will decimate low income communities through
unemployment and crime.

I am very interested in what happend to Los Angeles a few years after
their new minimum wage goes into effect.

Generally, robots will replace low income people anywhere, but not as
fast as where a high minimum wage is adopted.

After all, a robot can flip burgers pretty well!

i

If a robot can flip burgers, it won't make a damned bit of difference
what humans are making in wages. They're done, whether it's in five
years or five years and six months.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stop automation. And what wages are
being paid has nothing to do with it. The technology has it's own
pace.

But, I suspect that labour costs do have an influence on how quickly
robots will be added to the work force. If the robot is, say a half a
million dollars, and labour is $1.10 an hour then management looks at
the robot as something to be added in the future 1 robot=155 years of
labour. If labour is $15.00 an hour than the utilization of a robotic
work force becomes a much more important factor. 1 robot = 11.4 years.

But it just doesn't work that way in practice, John. Over the years
I've done dozens of stories on robots and other automation, visiting
and interviewing the managers who actually are doing it. The usual
scenario, in manufacturing, involves making a big operational change,
usually to expand capacity or to get more production out of existing
resources. That simple wages vs. investment calculation that many
people think is the determinant is not it. It is so trivial, compared
to the total costs and operational disruptions involved, that it
hardly gets a nod.


But I didn't say that labour cost was what drives the change over
merely that labour cost may well influence it. And I think that I am
probably correct that cost is a large factor that is taken into
consideration.

Some years ago I did some research on materials moving (conveyer belts
mostly) methods here in Thailand and in the process came across some
companies that were making "robots" for some of the car plants here.
Labour costs would have been in the 100 - 150 baht/day range then and
in every case the robots" were designed to do a single job more
consistently than doing it by hand. One I remember was a robot to weld
the axle tubes into a differential housing. It was faster than a human
but, according to the robot maker, the importance was that it didn't
make any bad welds :-)

Further, implementing robots usually doesn't involve laying people
off. Most often, the influence on employment is about people who are
*not hired*, sometime in the future. It has a strong effect over time,
but it's not a straight, immediate substitution.

Again, I didn't say that. However, unless the U.S. is different from
the rest of the world, the cost of making the product is a very
important factor in whether the company is viable, or not, and almost
without exception labour costs are the first item looked at when a
company is feeling a money crunch.

In services, automation is implemented mostly through IT, not through
mechanical hardware. That's a different scenario and I don't have much
direct experience with it.


First, yes, quality is a major reason for automating in advanced
manufacturing countries. Speaking just of manufacturing, it's far
ahead of direct-labor savings.

In the US, as in the rest of the developed world, direct labor is
roughly 10% of the cost of producing a car. It's been that way for
decades. It was 12% when I started in this business, in the mid-'70s.

So direct labor savings is not a big issue. Any single step of
automating can save only a trivial amount of direct labor. The big
motivations are quality, squeezing more out of existing resources
(such as eliminating a branched assembly line, with spot-welders),
expanding without the need for a third shift (always expensive and
defect-prone with humans), avoiding outsourcing, avoiing hiring
additional people, and so on. Direct labor savings in *existing
production* is 'way down the list.

It gets complicated these days because most of the part-making and
subassembly is pushed down to the Tiers of the supply chain. But the
same motivators apply there, as well as at the OEMs.


Yes. I went to an auto exposition, or some such name, in Bangkok a few
years ago and discovered that there are Thai companies that are making
such things as complete front suspension modules for export.
apparently to "foreign" car makers.

Re labour costs.

Direct labor costs in manufacturing, may well be 10% of total cost but
that is only one side of the coin.

What is the labour cost factor in running a Macdonald's?


17% corporate; 24% overall for company-owned plus franchised stores.
It's the 24% that you're thinking about. Technically, that's on sales,
not costs, but since their profit is only around 3.5% of sales, it's
almost the same number.

Or a factory
making shirts.


You'll have to check with Bangladesh. g

Or an airline?


You'll have to look that one up.

Recently Thai International, who have
been a drag on the government for years, got called on the carpet by
the new government. Apparently told that they had to start pulling
their own weight the first thing that they did was announce that there
would be a reduction in manpower. 5,000 job cuts.

Malaysian Airline who have apparently been factually bankrupt for
years now and supported by government "loans" have seemingly been
kicked out of the nest and now have to fly by themselves,. They have
hired some hot-shot European Manager to save them and the first
move.... cut personnel. "the carrier slashed 6,000 jobs as part of
plans to recover from deadly disasters and a long run of red ink".


Airlines are not a good example. Their costs vary all over the map.
Subsidized ones, like your example, are complex to unravel, because
subsidies can be hidden all over the place.



These facts are widely misunderstood.

  #8   Report Post  
Old June 9th 15, 03:13 AM posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by DIYBanter: Jan 2011
Posts: 897
Default OT disgusted with all presidential candidates

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:13:37 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 20:04:02 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 21:32:47 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:00:06 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 10:11:44 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 16:34:46 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 19:21:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2015 18:01:17 -0500, Ignoramus26399
wrote:

On 2015-06-06, Gunner Asch wrote:
Btw....the unemployment figures are growing again..particularly in
places that have instituted that $15 min wage.


I am convinced that $15 minimum wage is a disaster for cities that
adopt them, because it will decimate low income communities through
unemployment and crime.

I am very interested in what happend to Los Angeles a few years after
their new minimum wage goes into effect.

Generally, robots will replace low income people anywhere, but not as
fast as where a high minimum wage is adopted.

After all, a robot can flip burgers pretty well!

i

If a robot can flip burgers, it won't make a damned bit of difference
what humans are making in wages. They're done, whether it's in five
years or five years and six months.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, will stop automation. And what wages are
being paid has nothing to do with it. The technology has it's own
pace.

But, I suspect that labour costs do have an influence on how quickly
robots will be added to the work force. If the robot is, say a half a
million dollars, and labour is $1.10 an hour then management looks at
the robot as something to be added in the future 1 robot=155 years of
labour. If labour is $15.00 an hour than the utilization of a robotic
work force becomes a much more important factor. 1 robot = 11.4 years.

But it just doesn't work that way in practice, John. Over the years
I've done dozens of stories on robots and other automation, visiting
and interviewing the managers who actually are doing it. The usual
scenario, in manufacturing, involves making a big operational change,
usually to expand capacity or to get more production out of existing
resources. That simple wages vs. investment calculation that many
people think is the determinant is not it. It is so trivial, compared
to the total costs and operational disruptions involved, that it
hardly gets a nod.


But I didn't say that labour cost was what drives the change over
merely that labour cost may well influence it. And I think that I am
probably correct that cost is a large factor that is taken into
consideration.

Some years ago I did some research on materials moving (conveyer belts
mostly) methods here in Thailand and in the process came across some
companies that were making "robots" for some of the car plants here.
Labour costs would have been in the 100 - 150 baht/day range then and
in every case the robots" were designed to do a single job more
consistently than doing it by hand. One I remember was a robot to weld
the axle tubes into a differential housing. It was faster than a human
but, according to the robot maker, the importance was that it didn't
make any bad welds :-)

Further, implementing robots usually doesn't involve laying people
off. Most often, the influence on employment is about people who are
*not hired*, sometime in the future. It has a strong effect over time,
but it's not a straight, immediate substitution.

Again, I didn't say that. However, unless the U.S. is different from
the rest of the world, the cost of making the product is a very
important factor in whether the company is viable, or not, and almost
without exception labour costs are the first item looked at when a
company is feeling a money crunch.

In services, automation is implemented mostly through IT, not through
mechanical hardware. That's a different scenario and I don't have much
direct experience with it.

First, yes, quality is a major reason for automating in advanced
manufacturing countries. Speaking just of manufacturing, it's far
ahead of direct-labor savings.

In the US, as in the rest of the developed world, direct labor is
roughly 10% of the cost of producing a car. It's been that way for
decades. It was 12% when I started in this business, in the mid-'70s.

So direct labor savings is not a big issue. Any single step of
automating can save only a trivial amount of direct labor. The big
motivations are quality, squeezing more out of existing resources
(such as eliminating a branched assembly line, with spot-welders),
expanding without the need for a third shift (always expensive and
defect-prone with humans), avoiding outsourcing, avoiing hiring
additional people, and so on. Direct labor savings in *existing
production* is 'way down the list.

It gets complicated these days because most of the part-making and
subassembly is pushed down to the Tiers of the supply chain. But the
same motivators apply there, as well as at the OEMs.


Yes. I went to an auto exposition, or some such name, in Bangkok a few
years ago and discovered that there are Thai companies that are making
such things as complete front suspension modules for export.
apparently to "foreign" car makers.

Re labour costs.

Direct labor costs in manufacturing, may well be 10% of total cost but
that is only one side of the coin.

What is the labour cost factor in running a Macdonald's?


17% corporate; 24% overall for company-owned plus franchised stores.
It's the 24% that you're thinking about. Technically, that's on sales,
not costs, but since their profit is only around 3.5% of sales, it's
almost the same number.

Or a factory
making shirts.


You'll have to check with Bangladesh. g

Or an airline?


You'll have to look that one up.

Recently Thai International, who have
been a drag on the government for years, got called on the carpet by
the new government. Apparently told that they had to start pulling
their own weight the first thing that they did was announce that there
would be a reduction in manpower. 5,000 job cuts.

Malaysian Airline who have apparently been factually bankrupt for
years now and supported by government "loans" have seemingly been
kicked out of the nest and now have to fly by themselves,. They have
hired some hot-shot European Manager to save them and the first
move.... cut personnel. "the carrier slashed 6,000 jobs as part of
plans to recover from deadly disasters and a long run of red ink".


Airlines are not a good example. Their costs vary all over the map.
Subsidized ones, like your example, are complex to unravel, because
subsidies can be hidden all over the place.


But, my point is/was that although labour may only be 10% of the cost
of manufactured goods, it is radically different in other businesses.
My wife's girlfriend started a "shirt factory" that essentially sewed
pre-cut pieces of cloth together to make a shirt. 25 second hand
sewing machines was the initial investment and then the salaries of
the 25 girls that did the work, which was, on a shirt by shirt basis a
variable. She later changed that to a fixed cost by putting the sewing
girls" on a fixed rate of so much a finished shirt. (which the girls
seemed to prefer also).

In addition the first cost item that companies always seem to look at
in a financial or business downturn seem to be "Labour".

I might add, that I was the company "hatchet man" on my last position.
When there was a downturn in the oil business and contract weren't
being issued, I got called in and told to "look at costs".

Now, I freely admit to being something of a "rabble rouser" and I used
to start my list of excessive costs with the daily DHL delivery from
our Singapore office to the home office in Jakarta. No longer needed
for project support but still bringing the copies of the British
"Football News" that our Controller read and the Christies catalogs
that one of the owners enjoyed. Oh yes, and the first class air
tickets used by senior management on the 50 minute flights to
Singapore, and of course the air freight back for the goodies that
they bought there - one of the owners used to buy breakfast cereal in
Singapore and have the company ship it to Jakarta as it was "cheaper
in Singapore".

Strange as it might seem these items were generally overlooked and the
fact that we "have four office boys" was usually the first item that
was discussed - for a two story office with probably 50 employees. "Do
we Really need that many?" :-)





These facts are widely misunderstood.

--
cheers,

John B.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT disgusted with all presidential candidates John B. Metalworking 0 June 7th 15 10:32 AM
I'm beyond disgusted with Mark Wieber lying about Cliff Huprich's death. jon_banquer[_2_] Metalworking 0 November 20th 13 08:22 PM
Angry, Disgusted, Frustrated jon_banquer[_2_] Metalworking 0 September 19th 13 07:41 PM
THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES - IN BRIEF Pisano Home Repair 34 March 4th 08 06:59 PM
Petition to Presidential Candidates greg3347 Home Repair 1 August 29th 07 09:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"

 

Copyright © 2017