GM Installs Robots At Flagship EV Factory After Laying Off 1,300 Workers (arstechnica.com) 197
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Dozens of new robot arms have been installed at General Motors' flagship electric vehicle factory in Detroit -- even as 1,300 workers remain out of work following what was supposed to be a temporary layoff. The latest automation push has spurred union pushback over a potentially existential issue for automakers and their workers. General Motors installed approximately 50 robot arms at GM's Factory Zero plant in Detroit, Michigan, according to reporting by Crain's Detroit Business. Made by the Japanese robotics company FANUC, the robots are designed to help attach various components to vehicles during the assembly line process. But leaders at United Auto Workers (UAW), the primary US union for autoworkers, reacted with anger to the new robotic presence, given how GM has not yet called back any of the workers affected by supposedly temporary layoffs in March.
More than 1,000 union members are still "laid off indefinitely," James Cotton, president of UAW Local 22, told The Detroit News. He said that the company could bring some of those members back to work instead of installing the 50 robots. The temporary layoffs were preceded by permanent layoffs involving another 1,200 workers at GM's Factory Zero in October 2025. Many automakers, including Stellantis NV and Ford Motor Company, have deployed assembly-line robots, such as Fanuc robot arms, as they push to automate more of their US operations. Hyundai Motor Company plans to deploy Atlas humanoid robots made by Boston Dynamics -- which Hyundai acquired in 2020 -- to start working in the automaker's flagship EV facility in Georgia by 2028. "Technological development has the capability of making work safer for the working class and enabling workers to have a shorter work week without losing pay," said Andrew Bergman, a Local 22 member and union organizer who was among those laid off by GM. "But in the bosses' and billionaires' hands it's used to pad profits and lay off workers."
More than 1,000 union members are still "laid off indefinitely," James Cotton, president of UAW Local 22, told The Detroit News. He said that the company could bring some of those members back to work instead of installing the 50 robots. The temporary layoffs were preceded by permanent layoffs involving another 1,200 workers at GM's Factory Zero in October 2025. Many automakers, including Stellantis NV and Ford Motor Company, have deployed assembly-line robots, such as Fanuc robot arms, as they push to automate more of their US operations. Hyundai Motor Company plans to deploy Atlas humanoid robots made by Boston Dynamics -- which Hyundai acquired in 2020 -- to start working in the automaker's flagship EV facility in Georgia by 2028. "Technological development has the capability of making work safer for the working class and enabling workers to have a shorter work week without losing pay," said Andrew Bergman, a Local 22 member and union organizer who was among those laid off by GM. "But in the bosses' and billionaires' hands it's used to pad profits and lay off workers."
70% of middle class jobs lost since 1980 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:70% of middle class jobs lost since 1980 (Score:4, Insightful)
Some might say that anything done that can be done by a robot *should* be done by a robot. They are tools, after all. Should we ban wrenches next? The jobs being lost should *not* exist into the next century.
Re:70% of middle class jobs lost since 1980 (Score:5, Interesting)
Some might say that anything done that can be done by a robot *should* be done by a robot. They are tools, after all. Should we ban wrenches next? The jobs being lost should *not* exist into the next century.
In truth, I struggle with this type of thinking. If we lived in a just society that too care of the folks who are either transitioning to new prospects, or are simply falling through the cracks due to being in a late career state when they are let go due to automation, it'd be easy to accept that some jobs should disappear when they can be automated away. The problem is, we don't live in that society. These people will be vilified as they slowly watch whatever they've managed to save through their life dwindle. Some will end up homeless. And then they will be further vilified by people claiming that all homeless people are simply too lazy to get a job. No acknowledgement of individual circumstances outside of lazy, drunk, drug addict will ever be accepted by society at large, because that's an image that someone with media control has been pushing for decades now.
As automation continues to sweep away entire job sectors, and more and more of us face those circumstances, it gets harder and harder to justify seeing automation as a friend to humanity. A friend to the corporate owner class, sure. But do we really have to wait until so many people are out of work that no one can afford to buy the products being built by automation? We've set our society up to where the only people that can effect change are the people that are at the top of the financial heap. And they won't be impacted by profit loss until there is nearly no one left to purchase products. And by that point, I'd imagine the vilification of the poor will be so outrageous that it won't be completely outside the realm of possibility that the government is simply convinced that if you aren't contributing to the profits of the owners, you are worthless and therefore expendable. I mean, that mentality already seems to reign in big portions of our world.
Or, maybe, just maybe, we could start thinking about how we're going to take care of people as work slowly becomes the purview of the robots and computers.
Re:70% of middle class jobs lost since 1980 (Score:5, Informative)
Minimum Basic Income is the only way.
I now conservatives will squirm at the very thought of giving a living wage to someone who doesn't work for it. But that's where we are headed when more and more of us will be unable to find reasonable employment due to robots destroying the blue collar and AI destroying the white collar jobs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I now conservatives will squirm at the very thought of giving a living wage to someone who doesn't work for it.
Which is ironic because they completely do support that happening for the owning class, but not for them, even though they are promoting their own demise by supporting that class.
Re: (Score:3)
You gotta kill capitalism first, otherwise rent seeking behavior will suck up all the money. Pretty much exactly what happens when minimum wage goes up. If you intend UBI to cover all the basics, then the basics need to be fixed so UBI can cover them. USA will end before that ever happens here.
If you don't work you don't eat (Score:5, Informative)
We are not socially equipped to deal with a work shortage. It doesn't matter how many times you speak reasonably nobody wants to hear it. The average American reads at the level of a 12-year-old and that implies that they think at the level of a 12 year old. Which is why black and white phrases like, if you don't work you don't eat, are so popular.
I am open to suggestions but I want to be clear that explaining to people is not a solution. Like Ronald Reagan said when you're explaining you're losing
Oh good (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
US is a country of immigrants. People from various other countries have been moving to US. Of course, they are moving to US because it offers them better quality of life, better wages. But why aren't Americans moving to other countries as much? I know some go to Mexico for retirement. But there are so many options. The quality of life in some of the other cheaper countries isn't all that bad. Sometime its just peace of mind, not living under the burden of debt. If one cannot make ends meet in the US, then e
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some might say that anything done that can be done by a robot *should* be done by a robot. They are tools, after all. Should we ban wrenches next? The jobs being lost should *not* exist into the next century.
Nobody said otherwise but you had to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that you missed the point.
The Luddites didn't say we shouldn't advance technology. They said that the advances in technology should benefit everyone, not just the capitalists at the top of the pyramid.
You are attacking a position that not even the Luddites held. Enjoy playing with your straw man, but you are adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Re:70% of middle class jobs lost since 1980 (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree to that analysis. The point is not to stop the job loss to automation. The point is what to do with the effects and that does include two critical questions:
(1) How are the jobless going to live decently enough financially to not raise up and destroy everything?
(2) What are jobless going to do with their time so that they do not raise up and destroy everything from sheer boredom and desire to have an impact?
At this time, both (1) and (2) are unsolved. (1) because of unfettered greed, stupidity, arrogance and some scum that has to get even richer when they are already rich beyond all reason. (2) is unsolved because we actually do not know. This is the first time the human race has encountered this issue. When it happened to some
"high class" groups in the past, they mostly became self-destructive.
Re: (Score:2)
If we lived in a society with free housing, food, and healthcare. That would be one thing. If the overlords passed the lower production costs on to the consumer, that would be another. Instead we are likely to reach a point where the majority of people are unemployed and destitute; and business only make products for other businesses and the wealthy. Because they are the only ones who can afford to buy anything. Inevitably that is how you get vio
Re: (Score:2)
if that were true you wouldn't be making such a big fuss about everything being made in China.
Are Chinese workers equivalent to wrenches in your world view?
Re:70% of middle class jobs lost since 1980 (Score:5, Insightful)
Some might argue that anything that *can* be done by an automated system *should* be done by one. At their core, robots and software are just tools. Should we ban wrenches next?
If we outlawed basic tools to force companies to hire 50 people to do the work of one, weâ(TM)d certainly create jobs, but a new car would cost a million dollars, and our standard of living would crater.
The reality is that anyone paying attention 20 or 30 years ago knew these highly repetitive, manual roles weren't surviving into the next century. Automating grueling, repetitive labor isn't a tragedy; it's industrial evolution. The goal shouldn't be to freeze the economy in 1980 just to preserve obsolete roles, but to adapt our skills for what comes next.
Re:70% of middle class jobs lost since 1980 (Score:5, Insightful)
What comes next is the realisation that the majority of the labour force is not needed, but the whole society is completely unprepared for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. What we are going to is that a somewhat small part of the work force will be in high demand (mostly STEM people that are good at what they do), but only a small part of the rest will have jobs. It is a novel situation. Most leaders are hard at work to try to ignore it and some are trying old recipes (like war or religion) to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
How very fascist of you. Yes, the fascist model of society is a possible solution. Short-term. Because it does not lead to a stable society. In fact, the actually implemented versions needed to dispose of tons of useless people by way of war and death-camps to keep things somewhat stable and some fundamentalist (quasi-)religious cult-like organization. You really want that?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Forty years? No.. Not forty years. One-hundred seventy years.
You don't think we had automation in the early 1900's??
Re:70% of middle class jobs lost since 1980 (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah! Those bloody excavators took my great grandfather's job away. He was a trench digger, and was an absolute star at it. Railroad steam engines killed his father's job. He used to haul people between major cities in horse wagons. Industrial revolution should have been banned by George III, before Mr. James Watt was born. We wouldn't have had FANUC making these brainless "arms" with no torsos.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we think that.
Automatic Weaving Looms (Northrop Looms)
In the textile industry, the introduction of the automatic bobbin-changing loom meant a single operator could manage 20 or more machines instead of just two or four.
This caused widespread "de-skilling" of the workforce and led to intense pressure to increase the "workload" per employee.
This specific type of automation led to massive labor unrest, such as the Lawrence Textile Strike (1912).
Continuous Processing and Automatic Control (1900s–1920
Re: (Score:2)
I just want to be clear about this: you believe the American middle class is smaller/worse-off than it was in the early 1900s?
Re: (Score:2)
We just don't like the talk about it.
Because we're too busy working middle class jobs to care about the ones that got lost to automation. Unemployment is lower now than it was in the 70s - and before you claim that is lying statistics, those statistics match across political spectrums, across governments, and across nations.
It's not just whataboutism, it's completely fucking irrelevant on a societal scale. I frankly do not care if my job is lost to automation today. I care if I have a job to do. In fact after a 3 hours teams meeting I'm really
Re: (Score:2)
Because we're too busy working middle class jobs to care about the ones that got lost to automation.
Middle class jobs? They sure don't fucking pay like middle class jobs. Most people who think they are in the middle class are in fact not.
after a 3 hours teams meeting I'm really hoping I can replace that shit with AI or something so I can get on to doing more productive work elsewhere.
That's not how it's going to work. In the past you'd replace people with automation and then they'd go get a job that was harder to automate. Well, now the job that's harder to automate requires a four year degree or better, and they're looking at automating that job away as well.
Humanity punted on sharing the wealth when this became an issue, but now there's no more time
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to ignore your mindless whining and address the one actual on topic point you made:
That's not how it's going to work. In the past you'd replace people with automation and then they'd go get a job that was harder to automate.
This point is tired. It has been repeated by every generation since the concept of work was introduced. And yet society is still working, still earning, still producing. Our goal should be to make ourselves free from the clutches of work, but for thousands of years we've failed in doing so.
But sure maybe THIS TIME will be different right?
Re: (Score:3)
But sure maybe THIS TIME will be different right?
This time is already different. You don't need a crystal ball, you need glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
This time is already different. You don't need a crystal ball, you need glasses.
And yet precisely none of the data indicates it as such. Not trends, not current values.
Re: (Score:2)
Middle class jobs? They sure don't fucking pay like middle class jobs. Most people who think they are in the middle class are in fact not.
The middle class are skilled-professionals, artists, and business owners. It is not a matter of salary, but of portability. If you can pick and choose among clients you are middle class, if your skill binds you to an employer you are working class. Much of what we called middle class jobs are not, even if they paid well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. While LLM-type AI will probably not cause a job apocalypse (it looks more and more problematic every day and the business numbers basically have zero chance to work in the foreseeable future), automation and things like simulation and design software are drastically reducing the need for manual labor and that is an ongoing and successful process. It is also a slow process, which is probably why the not-so-smart majority are trying denial as a coping strategy, with predictable results.
We need to face it
Re: (Score:2)
We need to face it sooner or later: Only talented people are going to have work in the future. Education can enable these but it cannot create them. Whether it is STEM graduates that are actually good (!) at what they do or tradespeople that are. Obviously, some service and entertainment jobs will remain, but these will not make a large difference. Now, how do you design a society where something like 50% or more of the population is basically not employable?
Repeat after me: your job is not your life. Your job is not your life. Your job is not your life.
If people are "not employable," then they can go about their lives spending that time enjoying themselves. Hobbies. Travel. Entertainment. Volunteering. And so on. What's wrong with that? Why do you assume that people who you call "not employable" will have to die in your version of the future? You can have a meaningful, good quality of life without having to be "employed" every waking minute of every day...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, 70% of the middle class is no longer part of the middle class, because they moved to the *upper* class.
https://www.pewresearch.org/ra... [pewresearch.org]
Yes, the middle class shrank from 61% to 50% of the population. But of that 11% drop in the middle class, 2 of 3 moved to the *upper* income category.
Yes, 1 of 3 did move to the lower income category, and that's not good. But it's nowhere near as bad as saying that "70% of middle class jobs lost were due to robots." That's simply false and made-up.
Re: (Score:2)
Another person who needs to read Bastiat.
Do you think it would help the middle class to bring back the requirement for people to walk in front of cars waving a lantern?
Re: (Score:2)
Middle class jobs go to illegals.
If you want a good middle class job, the solution is easy. Simply don't tell prospective employers you are a citizen. You can do that, right?
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
Re:The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
The way things are headed, the only way people are going to be able to obtain money to pay for those widgets is via social welfare programs.
Re: (Score:3)
We embrace corporations because they standardize and automate and reduce head-count. We don't think about the resulting monopolies and wages converted to profits. We're reaching the point where that inhumanization is affecting most humans: Rent-seeking, gig-economy employees and enshittification.
It's is the job of government to provide social welfare. But Reagan and the GOP re-purpos
Re: (Score:2)
Wages have never been "proportional to productivity", not ever.
Wages (the price of labor) are based on two things, like the price of anything else: supply and demand.
If you do a job that anybody can do (supply is high) and demand is low, wages will be low. If you do a job that only a select few can do (supply is low), and it's in demand, wages will be high.
The idea that wages should be tied to productivity, exists only in the imagination.
Re: (Score:3)
1300 workers being employed would amount to a rounding error on GM's quarterly reports.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"hoarders" do not need excuses, it's their property, they're free to do with it whatever they like.
Most of it is stolen property, if we're talking about the wealthy. Bribes and corruption and theft and back-stabbing and unethical practice of law and other inappropriate activities feed the bank accounts of the majority of the wealthy, and always have.
The majority of the wealthy have a strange mental illness that causes them to do all sorts of inappropriate and often illegal things to acquire ever more wealth. So my sympathy is limited.
Plus we don't allow people to do whatever they want with property. T
Re: The purpose of a factory is not to provide job (Score:2)
None of this money has their name on it. Even if you're a billionaire, you depend on the infrastructure and institutions that make it possible to own thing and spend money. Property ownership in a vacuum is not possible, you have to have a civilization around you to recognize that ownership. And it turns out that even in the West, there are things you don't completly own. Try not paying property tax for a while and see how much you own your own home.
Re:The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs (Score:5, Interesting)
That's OK but the only reason many people buy American cars and trucks is to support American jobs.
When it's all robots might as well get a Tundra rather than a 1500. Or maybe BYD will come in with something soon.
We'll see how that goes.
Re:The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs (Score:5, Informative)
That's OK but the only reason many people buy American cars and trucks is to support American jobs.
Those people are morons. Plenty of "foreign" (Toyota, Honda) vehicles are made is factories in the Midwest and southern U.S. where Americans are put to work, while many models of "domestic" brands (Ford, Chevy) are actually made in Mexico and imported to the U.S. (Thanks, NAFTA!) The idea an "American brand" is putting Americans to work and foreign brands do not is a falsehood the U.S. automakers are happy to encourage to help their businesses.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you are supporting American jobs, then you need to buy a Toyota. They employ more American workers than Ford at plants in America. Your Ford is more likely made in Canada or Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
That's OK but the only reason many people buy American cars and trucks is to support American jobs.
While a few people do care about others jobs, most purchase their vehicle based on price vs features/functionality, and not how many jobs those vehicles support.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not buy a robot arm and make your own car? Maybe not today, but manufacturing itself is bound to be obsolete one day. And then we can just shrug at GM when they are sad about all the 3D printers and Chinese imports.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you say union, when the correct term is worker?
The union was not willing to accept wage cuts
The workers vote what the union has to do, and then the union is their proxy towards the company.
that could have saved their jobs ... I forgot, it is for paying the gasoline to ride to the second job and home.
What is the point of having a job, when you can not live from the wage? Oh
You some pretty stupid ideas about "what the job of a union" is.
Re: (Score:2)
"What is the point of having a job, when you can not live from the wage?"
Sometimes it's to buy textbooks, or make extra money on the side, or to earn money during the summer so you can spend it during the rest of the year.
It's myopic to assume that all jobs are supposed to be full-time careers.
Re:The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
Those three statements are policy choices, not objective facts. Capitalists like to present them as inevitable, but of course they are not; they are only presented as such because it's in capitalists' interest for people to see them that way.
Re: (Score:2)
sure, these are choices that stem out of another choice, namely out of the choice to have private ownership and operation of property. If the factory is private property, then it is operating in an environment that promotes and defends private property rights. This means nobody us forced to work there also, not just that nobody is owed a job there. In this environment competition is inevitable and it is competition for the purchasing power of individual buyers. So the demand and purchasing conditions ar
Re: (Score:2)
The policy job of work for work's sake only exists in a select few countries. For the west they very much are objective facts. And you know what? That's okay. Industrialisation has done the exact opposite of put people out of work. It's created a larger economy with more jobs.
Unemployment in the 70s averaged between 6-9%, it's currently under 5%. And that's despite there being 120million more people in the USA now compared to the 70s.
Re: The purpose of a factory is not to provide job (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And yet none of that has anything to do with jobs being automated away. Try to stay on topic. I agree with you, but yet your post is completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion.
People don't realize what's coming (Score:2)
That means you can no longer afford police.
It also means that in a country with more guns than people you have millions of people with nothing to lose and no police to keep them in line.
I know a lot of right wingers who are looking forward to this because they think that means they get to shoot people.
So here's the thing yeah maybe you get to shoot the first punk who tries to break in and raid your fridge.
What about the ne
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I don't believe for a second that this means the job market collapses. You're making an extreme slippery slope argument and tying it to extraordinary outcomes. There will be the usual economic churn, people will find new work, and that'll be that.
Re: (Score:3)
There are some obvious problems when you take a step back.
For example, it imagines that society is already structured exclusively around the relationship between factory workers and industrialists, and creates policy to that end. In the process, it may accidentally reinforce a stratification that isn't naturally the only one in society, and in doing so simply create a different kind of two tier system dominated by middle managers. As it did in the USSR.
Marx's observations about the workers controlling the m
Re: (Score:2)
Marx failed to see how easily the problems he saw could be fixed in a democratic Republic. He thought violence and oppression were the only solution, even though he thought the problem was violence and oppression.
Though I've often
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And Fascism does not work very well either, but that does not prevent the current U.S. moving in that direction.
Re:The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's your suggested alternative?
GM keep 1300 workers and bonuses for the suits decrease by 0.1%?
Re: The purpose of a factory is not to provide job (Score:2)
Are you claiming that the suits bonuses total around $100 billion?
Or are you full of it?
Re: (Score:2)
You're stating 1300 autoworkers make $100 billion? What?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between Henry Ford and todays greed-driven idiots is that Henry Ford wanted to keep things working long-term. If that was good for his workers, so what? While that was not the goal, he did not mind. Todays rich greedy scum feel offended when something is good for workers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
And then of course there's the whole "dictatorship of the proletari
Re: The purpose of a factory is not to provide job (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
incorrect. The starting wage for a machinist is very low, relatively.
Re: (Score:3)
Have fun running an economy where nobody has a job. At some point there ought to be a cause for concern, even for the laissez-faire anarcho-capitalist types, at least the ones that can do basic arithmetic.
A post scarcity society? (Score:3)
Iain M Banks 'Culture' novels are set in such a universe; it's a VERY different mindset. Worth a read.
Re: (Score:3)
The Culture / San Junipero is something to look forward to but we need something meanwhile for the transition.
Re: A post scarcity society? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
at least the ones that can do basic arithmetic.
You out your finger on the problem there...
Re:The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It absolutely makes sense to replace workers with robots from the perspective of a single company. If you broaden the perspective, you end up in existential questions. What is the purpose of life. What is the purpose of 7 000 000 000 people? What do we do with "obsolete" people, people who do not contribute to the economy.
That is when the hard questions emerge. Too easy to hide behind a single company then. "Let the government figure it out! Not my concern!". If you do not engage there, it will become your concern whether you want it or not, long term. Lets fantasize a bit. Let's make it extreme. AI takes over, robots do 95% of the work. That includes maintaining robots. It could go two ways I guess. We all live a life long vacation, or it polarizes in haves and have nots. With the way things are set up now, it will go in the haves have nots direction. That is brutal. That is a total disrespect for human life. We better start thinking of a social welfare program or it is going to be very ugly.
We have been here before. Basically when steam engines and machinery improved our living standards. In my country, that is when socialism emerged in the government. After a lot of bloodshed. Let's try to avoid the bloodshed this time. Let's, for once, let reason rule, not hormones.
Re: (Score:2)
What do we do with "obsolete" people, people who do not contribute to the economy.
But you're begging the question. First tell us why these people are "obsolete". Having your job replaced in one company doesn't make you useless. Heck having your industry replaced doesn't make you useless either. Pursuing career change can seem daunting but it's a thing that normal people do every day in your pool of billions in significant numbers.
You are value, not that one specific task you were doing yesterday, but your ability to do another task tomorrow. Note: unemployment is currently lower than it
Re:The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
Only kinda. Let me remind you there is no natural right to limited liability companies. They exist purely (in principle) for the benefit of society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and the benefit to society comes in the form of the widgets it so desperately needs.
And also the people it employs and the effect to the greater economy. All of those things are benefits to society, for which people are prepared to give the directors and shareholders some level of protection, as part of a bargain. If the factory provides less benefit, why should the people taking the profit get the same level of protection?
Re: (Score:2)
You act like people need permission to create and build. You've got it all backwards. There is no bargain here, just a legal framework for people to work together for some purpose. It is not a gift from society; it is a protected right. You can start a business where people would pay you for a kick in the face. Probably won't get any customers, but you can do it. You have a right to freedom of association. You have a right to make contrac
Re: (Score:2)
They exist purely (in principle) for the benefit of society.
Benefit of society does not mean senseless jobs. In fact some may argue there is a meaningful benefit to society in providing economic activity *without* tying up human labour. That allows labour to be put to better use elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
That's enlightning
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of a company in society, is to provide human jobs.
The reality is you either get paid by a social welfare program, or you get paid by a social welfare program.
Arguing for the demise of one, will only feed the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A tipping point is coming and it won't be pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of a factory is not to provide jobs.
It's intended to made widgets that can then be sold at a profit.
It's not a social welfare program.
Who will they sell their widgets to if everyone is starving or dead? Nobody needs widgets when they are starving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A very simplistic and incomplete view. How do you think people can pay when they buy that widget? Right, you did not think about that little aspect. What a fail.
Assembly line is robotic (Score:3)
Bringing workers back instead of installing robots (Score:2)
Repetitive jobs are the perfect target for automation. Anyone that can't see that deserves to be talking like their head is in the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
Just an idea (Score:2)
Making a good car as opposed to a hard to fix, planned obsolescence iPad on wheels might drive sales and numbers... Not saying getting more efficient is a bad idea but the other thing might do more for the bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's progress.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's technological progress alright. But not a societal one yet - it actually looks like we're heading off a cliff in that regard, and only a few have parachutes.
1,300 workers be getting, you've been replaced (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Factory Zero (Score:2)
Interesting contrast to AI automation (Score:2)
Many of the comments to this article downplay the jobs replaced by robots, after all, that's what the assembly line is all about, right?
I find it interesting that most of the comments related to AI's potential for replacing jobs, often take a decidedly different tone.
Re: (Score:2)