Hacker News Reader

Comment by sixQuarks | Hacker News Reader

I'd have to think Tesla sees the "human equation" as being the biggest and/or most unpredictable cost of car manufacturing, and Elon's stated goal of being the world's best manufacturer - with the focus on "building the machine that builds the machine", means they are going to try to automate everything.

If I was an auto worker, I'd be very concerned. I'm not saying auto workers should stop complaining, but the more they complain and try to unionize, the quicker the automation will come about. They're in a catch-22

View on HN

If the automation is inevitable though, it might make sense to unionize if that allows you to maximize the your wages in the short term. The limiting factor of automation is how much capital can be put towards research and implementation and if they have to pay their workers higher wages then there would be less capital to do so and that would actually slow the march towards automation. That being said, I'm not sure modern unions are more about actually helping employees have a collective bargaining chip than they are about enriching the people leading the organizations that are in the business of unionization.

The car industries are already fairly automated and have been for decades:

https://cdn.holmatro.com/files/thumb/c/a/Industrial_Tools_Ap...

Body Shops and Paint Shops are fully automated - no humans do work on the vehicles directly.

General Assembly is where floppy things like carpet are installed (along with all the other things that get bolted to the body and frame/subframe).

Floppy things are hard to automate, and more expensive for less ROI.

I wonder if, in some place like India, could all of the floppy parts be left to small businesses and local shops? Automated cars would deliver themselves to customers, with utilitarian interiors and utilitarian race-inspired webbing and harnesses, then be driven by the new owner to a customizing shop. I understand that trucks are sold somewhat like this, minus the automation.

Many things can work; fewer things work at scale; even fewer things make financial sense at scale.

Your idea would be more likely work in a country with fewer or no safety regulations. In the United States and Europe there are rules like FMVSS and UNECE rules[0]. Components have to be carefully designed and verified, which would be harder with Mom and Pop shops.

Also, OEMs are able to buy parts at volume, with volume discounts, small shops wouldn't necessarily get those discounts.

0.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Motor_Vehicle_Safety_S...

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Forum_for_Harmonization_...

0. http://jalopnik.com/a-simple-explanation-why-america-doesnt-...

> Floppy things are hard to automate

I'm so stealing that and extending it to:

Floppy or squishy things are hard to automate.

Yup, floppy, squishy, and things variable in type - nearly all of the variation in vehicles is in the trim, not the body.

> they are going to try to automate everything.

Like the other umpteen manufacturers had not done that before. The whole point of fordism was to make everything as simple, quickly repeatable, and eventually automated, as absolutely possible.

There is no "artisanship" in car manufacturing, humans are only required wherever the machines can't reach. That's been the case for a very long time. The only difference is that building production chains that keep workers safe and maintain high output, is not trivial. You have to design production chains with maintainability and accessibility in mind, which means the machinery might end up costing more or taking more to be designed or built. Whenever manufacturers cut corners, that's where workers end up in precarious positions. On top of that, you have to make sure workers get enough rest to be alert on the workplace, and make sure the actual shop floor is completely safe 100% of the time. If you don't do that, because you're too busy trying to hit production targets, that's where accidents happen - regardless of the degree of automation.

> I'm not saying auto workers should stop complaining

I'm not saying this statement is a pre-emptive disclaimer of responsibility towards the paragraph that follows it, but it's exactly that.

> the more they complain and try to unionize, the quicker the automation will come about.

Dude, that's already happened in that sector, it will keep happening, everybody knows it and it has nothing to do with unions. Employment numbers in the sector are nowhere near what they were even just 30 years ago - and not just in cars, all manufacturing is like that. Manufacturers run with the smallest possible skeleton crew that a modern production chain absolutely requires. This is not programming, where you can hire 2 or 10 developers depending on how you feel on a given morning; the production chain as built has X slots over Y shifts, so X*Y people will be hired. When you make a new model, you build a new chain; as technology makes chains better and smarter, X naturally decreases. That's just how it is, there is no "accelerating" the process - it's already as fast as technology makes it possible. Positive variations in employment numbers only come about from expansion, be it in volume or product diversification. Everything else pushes them down.

What kind of world have we created where we fear being liberated from the need to work?

One where we still need to work to live.

Almost like the fundamental problem is --and always has been -- the nature of the ownership of the means of production.

"liberated from the need to work" is an interesting way to say "unemployment"

The kind of world we have created is one where one must create value in order to have food & shelter. Automation simply funnels more and more of the value created into the pockets of fewer and fewer individuals.

It reminds me of this article: http://www.theonion.com/article/ibm-emancipates-8000-wage-sl...

There is a way to use automation to liberate people. It is my life's work (in progress) to figure out how to do this.

To me, this comes when we make automated machines whose purpose is to provide for human survival, and we make those machines open source. Groups of people purchase the machines, and through ownership they receive the benefits of automation rather than an elite ownership class.

I've written several essays on the topic on my website, and have a discussion board where people can discuss the ideas in more detail.

You may enjoy reading The Machine: http://tlalexander.com/machine/

Or The Corporation: http://tlalexander.com/corporation/

Eventually things will restructure so that the wealth of automation is redistributed. Not 100%, risk takers should still be rewarded. But something like universal income.

The transition will be tumultuous though, as most transitions are.

They won't be liberated from work, they will just be deprived of their revenue. If there is a famine and you find yourself starving, would you say that you are liberated from the need to eat?

Well then we need to get away from the idea of work and revenue. We need new economies where automation helps us all work less and still survive and contribute things to society. We need less of the consumerism cycle.

the world where you have no value if you dont "add value".

the market decides your worth, and unless you have something to offer, you get nothing in return.

which means work is going to be critical.

The one where one guy owns everything and no one at all "needs" to work... or eat.

A world where you and your family's livelihood is tied to your ability to get a job.

There were people in the 50s/60s who though that by 2000 we'd be working 30 hour work weeks and retiring by 45. The dream was that automation would help us work less and live more.

Today work is tied to our identity in many countries. "What do you do?" is a question asking about career. If you don't work, you must be lazy.

The solution isn't more jobs to make more things to keep us in the production cycle. Things should last longer. Cellphones should last six years, not two. When Intel posts a loss, it should be taken as a sign they produced chips so well that replacements aren't necessary.

This gets into a much much bigger problem of money, value, debt, consumerism and planned obsolescence. Ultimately if humanity is to survive another 10,000 years, we're going to need some pretty big paradigm shifts.

We're now living in a crashing world. There's too many people, we're consuming resources at an alarming pace, the environment is getting trashed. Things will get ugly before there can be a significant paradigm shift.

Keep in mind Elon is in favor of basic minimum income. My guess would be he would favor Tesla paying a large percentage of any savings achieved through automation to employees who are displaced.

A major benefit of automation is predictability, much higher throughput, and quality - cost savings is icing on the cake.

The problem is that in our economic system, there is no such thing as "we".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_rights_(economics)

In the current system we would be liberated from a livelihood which is something to fear if you are not independently wealthy.

Having been a grocery checker, I wouldn't worry about automation replacing factory workers any time soon. You can see how quickly automation has replaced human labor while waiting to buy milk at the grocery store.

Or on the other side, our society has people delivering milk directly to the house again. I wonder how long that will be in vogue this time - rehow soon until hipsters start buying cows to personally milk?

Robot workers are usually application-specific, while human people after incredibly general. Moving to robot workers is like replacing GPUs with ASICs - this could be excellent if they are designed for the task. Otherwise, your robots will not perform the task well. For instance, the humans can stop checking groceries and sweep the store on a slow day. Self-check robots cannot hold brooms or move around the area.

automation at checkouts won't replace the cashier any time soon, you're right. you don't need to spend all of that money on automation when there is zero skill and customers can and will do it themselves.

> You can see how quickly automation has replaced human labor while waiting to buy milk.

What do you mean by this? I (and most people I know) go through the self-checkout lanes. My trip to the grocery store from entering, selecting my products, purchasing them, and leaving, never causes me to interact with anyone.

Maybe you mean the "behind the scenes" stuff like people stocking the items? I don't know how that works at grocery stores but would be interested to learn.

This is assuming every store has even bought a self-check station. Many haven't, even though they have been "replacing checker jobs" for over a decade. And stores with self-check still frequently require human interaction for most exceptions:

- The bag you brought is too heavy and confuses the bag sensor.

- Buying age-restricted items.

- Item not in system.

- Coupons.

Yeah it's more of a slight difference in scale than complete replacement. Where before you needed 10 checkers for 10 tills, you now need 1 or 2 - and likely increased security to monitor people "accidentally slipping" stuff in their own bags.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com