Hacker News Reader

Comment by senthilnayagam | Hacker News Reader

the kind of jobs that would be created would be to install and maintain these robots and machines, until someone figures a way to automate that as well

View on HN

Such is the fate of China also, they're just a bit further removed from it.

Automated manufacturing is vastly more reliable and higher-quality than anything manual labor can pull off. As the standard of living rises in China and cost of labor exceeds the threshold, automation will take over just like it has here.

The death of US manufacturing is a little overblown (though not entirely) - what people are really talking about when they bemoan the death of American manufacturing is the death of American manufacturing jobs.

"The death of US manufacturing is a little overblown (though not entirely) - what people are really talking about when they bemoan the death of American manufacturing is the death of American manufacturing jobs."

Exactly, if you look at manufacturing output, America has remained a leader [1], but the number of people employed by manufacturers has gone down. The recession did put a dent in that increase of course.

[1] http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2010/02/17/usa-china-and...

"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."

But with any luck, the products of fully automated local manufacturing will be so much cheaper that humans won't need to work long hours in monotonous jobs in order to buy them.

I love the sentiment, but I doubt it will come to pass. That's exactly what people have said at every stage of industrialization. But the gains always end up being consolidated and the long work weeks and boring jobs march on.

>the long work weeks and boring jobs march on.

The long work weeks continue because apparently we are willing to trade less time at work for more stuff. If you want to live a 1960s lifestyle with a 60s size house, 60s level health care, 1 car per family, only 60s era gadgets, and cooking the vast majority of your meals--you could easily do it on 20 hours a week for most jobs.

As an experiment to illustrate my point, look around the room you're in and count the things that you own that didn't exist in 1960.

I think we have to factor in the VAST increases in quality of life that industrialization brings. Increasingly automated car manufacture undoubtedly still involves boring jobs, but it also brought car ownership within the realm of possibility for millions more people.

The same applies for anything from textiles (we can now buy clothing for a few dollars that would once have only been available to royalty) to electronics (in a world where almost everybody carries a mobile phone).

In the late 19th century it was normal for industrial jobs to be 12 hours a day, 360+ days a year. I wouldn't say that there haven't been changes.

If you look at the history of the industrial revolution , many of the gains the workers got:reasonable working hours, minimum wages, etc. were gained by a strong political fight(that many times took blood).

There's no reason to assume that this time it will be different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com