Automation replacing people

H

Hevelton Araujo

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]

>>Carl Ramer wrote:
>>I tend to disagree with a good portion of the above. The Industrial
>>Revolution isn't just starting, it's been here through all of my lifetime.
>> <clip>

Industrial Revolution has been around long before any of us got here. But never in history have things (in general) changed as fast as we are seeing today. And, IMHO, it tends to change even faster. I agree that the enough basic resources
(food, water, etc) are the essentials for a future society. But you touched on an very important point, which is "sufficient income available to the population to acquire those commodities". Automation, IF IT DOES REALLY COST JOBS, causes the newly automated company to increase its quality and/or productivity and, thus, to increase its profits (some of this increase comming from the "income" of the workers
who lost their jobs). Imagine this being done all over the world, we are talking about more wealth concentration, making the "income" not sufficient for all the people. What, IMHO, has to be done is to find other ways to distribute the wealth in order to have a stable (at least in today's standards, which, IMHO, are very low) society. Someone has pointed out the education is the key that answers this problem. I personally agree with that.

Best Regards,

Hevelton Araujo Junior
IHM Engenharia e Sistemas de Automação LTDA
[email protected]

PS.: Opinioes are my own, etc ...
 
W

Warren Medema

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]
Apparently there are two messages that are really combining. Allison
Walker's message (to me ) says that if an employer pays for your training - you are valuable. The original message implied that if you
helped with the new technology stuff, you could be replaced. Shift the focus of these two mesages together and you have a message that says that if you are knowledgeable, you are valuable. If the originator of this subject thought that his injection of service cost these people their jobs, he could write each one a reference for their future job searches saying how well they performed. I work construction and install
and repair many devices that have been installed. Nothing is forever and maybe, just maybe, I can work this new avenue towards my own good.
 
R

Ramer-1, Carl

[Originally posted 2/6/1998]
Hevelton Araujo Junior wrote:

>Automation, IF IT DOES REALLY COST JOBS, causes the
>newly automated company to increase its quality and/or productivity and,
>thus, to
>increase its profits (some of this increase comming from the "income" of the
>workers
>who lost their jobs).

Many assumptions in that statement, and if we accept them all, then you've described the kind of company that is trying to stay in business.
Any well run, reasonably moral company would also use some of the profits to expand the business and create more jobs. That's a fairly
classic model anyway.

>Imagine this being done all over the world, we are talking
>about more wealth concentration, making the "income" not sufficient for all
>the
>people.

Then the level of starvation would limit or reduce the population and create less demand for the products and services being provided by the
few who hold all the wealth. There has to be demand for any supply side producer to make money.

>What, IMHO, has to be done is to find other ways to distribute the wealth
>in order to have a stable (at least in today's standards, which, IMHO, are
>very low)
>society.

I think the USSR tried a little experiment along those lines a while back. That model didn't work too well, but there are alternatives for sure.

>Someone has pointed out the education is the key that answers this problem.
>I personally agree with that.

I get in trouble on a regular basis for saying that, but it's so basic that no argument can stand against it. Even if you happen to like
biblical adages, "teach a man to fish, don't give a man a fish" has been with us for a long time and is still valid. As was pointed out, the
rate of change in technology has created a demand for faster and more teaching, but most taxing authorities in the USA don't place a high enough priority on funding education. We get under educated people slammed into a technologically demanding workplace and they frequently become the first casualties when "machines" take over. Maybe we need to automate the teaching profession next. :) Has anyone seen an advertisement for a PTC (Programmable Training Controller) yet.

Carl Ramer
 
N

Noel Holshouser

[Originally posted 2/9/1998]
Michael Griffin wrote:
>
> With regards to automation replacing people, perhaps some of the
> people who think that this is a new problem might do well to remember Ned
> Ludd, a weaver who rebelled against power operated weaving machines in I
> believe the 18th century. But I suppose that Luddites never learn from history.
> However, no doubt the Indian members of this list could offer a bit
> of advice on what life is like in a country where very few people have been
> replaced by machines.
>
> The French economist Frederic Bastiat wrote a series of very well
> written articles in the 1840's which were later collected into a book called
> "Economic Fallacies" which you might find illuminating. In one story he
> invents a little tale about Robinson Crusoe marooned on his desert isle. One
> day Robinson Crusoe was walking down the beach, and came across some lumber
> which had washed up upon the beach. When he saw this, Crusoe rushed over to
> the wood, and threw it back into the sea. He did this because as the lumber
> was already cut and ready to be used, it would have deprived him of the
> employment of cutting it himself.
> The fallacy this illustrates is the assumption that work is an end
> in itself. Rather work is the cost we pay to get something that we want. If
> Robinson Crusoe had used the lumber he found on the beach, and used the time
> thus freed up to do something else, he would have had the benefit of having
> the wood, plus whatever else he was able to do in the time thus freed.
>
> The amount of work to be done in the world is not fixed, rather it
> is the resources we can employ to do this work which are limited. I am
> reminded that a century ago in Canada approximately 75 percent of the work
> force was employed in agriculture. Today it is around 6 percent. The result
> was not 70 percent unemployment; it was an abundance of automobiles,
> aircraft, electronics, and other wonderfull things which people are now
> available to produce.

While we are at it, let's have a moment of silence for those long gone blacksmiths who have been replaced by our machines (mills, lathes, etc.) over the past century plus. Please be aware though that there are some blacksmiths still doing custom work out there (artistic, custom, living history, etc.). Least anyone think these are dilettantes, I invite them
to come and bend iron along side of me this July in NW Louisana when it's 90+F and 90+% (an avocation of mine). The lessons to be learned in
metal displacement, cutting and heat treating might be of value to some who are not sufficiently founded in their craft (read profession if you must). Similiarly, a more than cursory examination of the history of the industrial revolution would reveal that displacements in labor, material and equipment have occurred regularly, been accepted and in
many cases forgotten. The concept that governments can long control anything seems totally at odds once again with these historical
antecedents and flies in the face of individualistic human endeavor.

As a software engineer, I shudder to think of having to walk into some of the appearant situations developing out there with inadequate
(none???) systems documentation. All too often a hired gun (my vocation) must walk bravely, some might say dumbly, into these and attempt to bring some order from chaos. I hope that unimagined horrors (this life or otherwise) await those who think a quick and dirty Visual Basic fix is economically and professionally sound. For an almost complete list of don'ts see http://www.jas.com - "Real programmers don't
write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC, after the age of 12."

In a more serious vein, I would appreciate any response relative to interest in network driven controllers similar to the Open Modular
Architecture Controllers (OMAC) as proposed by GM, Ford and Chrysler for the automotive industry.
 
K

Kevin Maguire

[Originally posted 2/10/1998]
I think we all agree that "sacking" employees replaced by automation is an unfortunate byproduct of technical advancement. And it would be nice if all companies cross-trained employees instead.

Unfortunately, the "teach a man to fish..." adage doesn't work with people who don't want to learn how to fish.

Be useful or useless. It is their choice.

Gov't cannot prevent this. Carl, your point about the USSR is right on.

Darwin was right.

Cold? Yes. Cruel? Maybe.

That is the world that we live in.

Can we have advancement without competition?

Tell your children and your loved ones to pay attention and not take anything for granted.

Kevin Maguire
 
V

Vladimir Zyubin

[Originally posted 2/14/1998]
Hello to All,

Michael Griffin wrote:
>
> With regards to automation replacing people, perhaps some of the
> people who think that this is a new problem might do well to remember Ned
> Ludd, a weaver who rebelled against power operated weaving machines in I
> believe the 18th century. But I suppose that Luddites never learn from history.

It seems (not only to me) that now the problem has had new colors, but economical one. In the first place, it connect with an impact of technique on our culture. And changes are going on too quickly and deeply to predict all possible
after-effects.
There are a lot of various works on this topic. I am mostly aware of German papers. (But, as a matter of fact, Germany has very strong school of philosophers :).
In spite of 'philosophy', it does not seem too dull and are excellent readable.

And, of course, poetry is more laconic...
Just as a digest:

"... the world on you depends"
la-la la-la-la "... end."

i.e., mostly, they write about our responsibility.

References:
1. Huning A. Philosophy of Technology and The Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. In: Durbin P.(ed.). Research in Philosophy & Technology. Vol. 2.
2. Lubbe H. Technisher und sozialer Wandel als
Orientierungsproblem. - "VDI-Berichte", 1979, Nr. 342 (Technical and Social Changes as a Problem of Orientation)
3. Ropohl G. Technik als GegenNatur. In: Natur als Gegenwelt., 1983 (Technique as an Opposition of Nature)
4. Adorno Th. Uber Technik und Humanismus...
5. Lenk H. Verantwortung in, fur, durch Technik...
(Responsibility in, for, via Technique )
6. Huning A. Ingenieurtatigkeit in ethische und
sozialer Verantwortung - "Zeitschrift fur
Vermessungswesen" Dec. 1985 (Engineering in ethic and social point of view)

E. Fromm, Heidegger, etc., etc., etc.

--
Vladimir E. Zyubin
mailto:[email protected]
Institute of Automation & Electrometry
Novosibirsk Russia
 
S
[Originally posted 2/11/1998]
Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:25:0, Kevin Maguire referenced Darwinism and Communism, and asked
"Can we have advancement without competition?"

Competition's good, Kevin. Maybe we wouldn't
be where we are without it. But one of the
characteristics of people is that we can
cooperate. Competition's good, cooperation's
better. Hence the existence of this list.

Steve Bain
 
K

Kim L. Ground

In many cases the people you are replacing are saved from jobs which are dangerous, boring, or otherwise unhealthy. It is true that those individuals are placed out of work, but in at least some cases they will find opportunities which are better than what they had before -- opportunities that they might not have been inclined to seek if they had not been 'pushed' out of their existing position.

Does the capitalist owner of the company owe these displaced workers anything ? Well, morally yes they probably should feel some motivation to retrain these workers, find them other jobs in the organization, or assist them with outside job searches, but thankfully we do not yet legislate most moral issues like this (just give the lawyers time). The hard fact is that employers will not take much effort to assist these displaced workers unless they perceive some advantage (measured in dollars on the bottom line) to do so. Those advantages DO exist in many cases -- a worker who has been in the factory for years must surely have learned a little something else about the operation than just which button to push to start his or her machine.
 
C

Chris Moore- Porvair

My company and I are busy engaged in selling robotic casting machines to anyone who will buy one (and lots of people want one when they see them) so I have spent some time think over this whole issue

1) Robots save factories, so indirectly they do save jobs

2) The war between Capital and Labour has finally been won, and Labour helped them do it!

3) Our society has to face up the fact that just because one does not possess Capital, it does not mean that one is not entitled to enjoy some of the benefits that all this Capital brings.

4) Our society would look very different if we measured our performance and paid ourselves in Human Happiness and not Money. Too often we equate the two. It must be axiomatic that all humans have equal right to Happiness- no-one deserves to have more happiness than another. It is not the factory owners responsibility to deal with the consequences of change- it is ours, for we are the society that creates change.

5) Engineers create for the joy of creation, in the same way that a composer or playwright creates- A complex machine/process is no less beautiful than a symphony (Although mostly only the creative team realise this!)

6)Humans have been obsessed with increasing their control over the environment since the first flint axe- Nothing we can say or do will do anything to slow the process- get out there and vote for the changes- thats what democracy is about

Phew! I'm worn out after that little brain dump.
 
H

Hamilton Woods

I read through the replies posted to this article and agree with several of the sentiments. I actually got into this business (industrial automation/controls) because I saw a lot of small and medium manufacturing companies going out of business in the community where I was raised. My thought was that I could help small and medium manufacturing concerns remain competitive through "pockets of automation". I define pockets of automation as small automation projects to remove bottlenecks of production. These bottlenecks can consist of throughput, quality, and/or safety. My approach was the 80/20 solution: gain 80% improvement with 20% of the cost of a completely automated workcell.

I have grieved over the issues expressed in this article, namely the replacement of people with machines. I even hated NAFTA, but realized that it was a big marketing tool for me: if you don't automate, all these jobs are going to Mexico.

About 2 years ago, I picked up a 2nd hand book that is now 15 years old by Stuart Rosenfeld, "Competitive Manufacturing: New Strategies for Regional Development." Dr. Rosenfeld writes from the perspective of acedemia and suggests education and collaboration as means for achieving the objective of remaining competitive. Dr. Rosenfeld uses as one of his case studies the decade of automation projects that occurred at Steelcase Corporation in Athens, Alabama. The conclusion of that decade of activity was that it (the automation project) was more costly than was originally conceived, but that the company is in much better posture for having investing in the process. The thing that caught my attention the most, though, was that Steelcase removed their skilled workforce from the production of standard line office furniture and opened up a completely new line of custom office furniture, using these highly skilled craftsmen more effectively. The end result was that Steelcase, because of their automation, had not only kept their workforce, but had expanded it!

I grant that, sadly, this is not always the case. I get frustrated that several forces discourage corporate investment in capital improvements. Unless a project can be shown to be profitable within 2 years' time, it has no chance of survival. As a result, I have witnessed the closing of most of the clothing manufacturers in the Tennessee Valley area during a 5 year period.

But I am also noting something that gives me hope: as the textile industry in North Alabama and Tennessee is in decline, the automotive industry has already moved in. Not only do major automotive manufacturers reside in the area, but several contract manufacturers of automotive parts have sprung up in these hills. I begin to see that we, as Americans, are adaptable.

I do not like to see employees replaced by machines, but I do see industrial automation as helpful to increase throughput, improve quality, and enhance safety.
 
L
Referencing "Darwinism" was predictable. Unfortunately, Darwin has become just a little obsolescent, and qualifies for some retraining!

In nature, 'arms races' occur between different species, but within a species (and after all, we presumably are discussing members of our species), other dynamics come into play.

Richard Dawkins wrote two excellent books on evolutionary theory, called "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Selfish Gene". In one of the two (sorry, I don't have them handy), he described a dynamic system that finds a resting place in what is called an 'evolutionary stable strategy', or ESS.

Imagine two strains of the same species who have propensities to pursue different strategies in replication. One is 'promiscuous', and the other is 'chaste'. The 'chaste' faction is very cautious about choosing a mate and invests a lot of time in doing so. Their progeny enjoy the benefit of receiving a relatively high level of care by well selected parents. Now introduce a 'promiscuous' member of the species, and that member has the possibility of producing a larger number of offspring, because it gets down to business much sooner, and gets more opportunities to pass down it's genes, including the genes that give it the propensity for promiscuousness.

Introducing the promiscuous strain will upset the balance that was achieved by the relatively 'chaste' strain. But the road to promiscuousness is not unending. At some point, it will no longer be a benefit to be promiscuous, especially once the whole population has gone over to being that strategy. The pendulum may swing back and forth a bit, but it will always hover around the point that is called the 'evolutionary stable strategy'.

With regards to the speed of technological advancement, there are factors keep it in check. I'm sure that you are all aware of this, having faced resistance to change. In the 'macro' view, this is the situation of a species that is teeter tottering back and forth over a pivotal stable strategy.

Why does it hurt? Because nature is not too concerned with the fortunes of any one individual. If a society pushes the envelope such that it is no longer serving the interests of the average man, then the pendulum WILL swing back towards the point where it WILL serve his/her interests. While that pendulum is swinging far away from the comfort level of some (or even most), then there will be pain.

Better than railing against Nature as we perceive her, we should concern ourselves with the abuse of power by the few. One poster asked the question 'how would unions feel about individual employees determining their own contracts in order to get guaranteed training?' While unions may have ostensibly been set up to benefit the interests of the workforce, the question that arises is: 'according to who?' As surely as an electron in a copper wire will fill the 'hole' created by the de-ionization of a neighboring copper atom, someone will set themselves up as the 'authority' to answer that question - usually with the betterment of their own interests being the end result.

(There is also an ESS involved in that dynamic too, with the interests of the 'leader' being weighed against the interests of the 'lead'.)

Engineers don't usually enter the field primarily from a quest for power or wealth. Not in the beginning at least. An interest in the sciences and the natural world is primarily motivated by the natural desire to gain mastery over a part of the physical world for the purpose of one's own survival. This is such a benevolent enterprise that a 'need' for rationalization merits examination.

At some point, each of us looked at the world we live in and asked ourselves how we can utilize what is available to us. If some people did not choose to do this, the question that we need to be asking is: why not? What is it that prevents them from following this very natural course of action?

I believe the answer is that we are being taught to accept and obey 'authority'. The state's monopoly on education is the cornerstone of this development. Once the state assumed the role of cradle-to-grave provider of not only education but security, then the responsibility for one's life no longer became the primary focus of the individual, but was entrusted to the state.

"Not in America" you ask? Look at the mountains of regulations, laws and the onerous tax code, all designed to poke and prod Americans into behaving in state-sanctioned ways. To the extent that the state endeavors to think for it's citizens, to that extent an essential element of our lives is taken away. That element is judgement. Where there is no freedom, there can be no reward - and no responsibilty.

The concept of achieving a static level of 'training' is foreign to me. I don't expect to ever stop learning. But I am self-taught, having taken this course in opposition to the culture and community that raised me.

Do I learn all that I can, whenever I can? I can't say that I do. At some point, I have to rest, and we all do so (I hope!)

So, when I think about displacing someone, I think that it's probably going to hurt them for a little while, but not in the long run. It may do them good overall. It's a challenge they face, but far be it from me to assume that they are not up to the challenge! Better to respect their ability, and expect that once they stop doing something that I can design and program a relatively stupid little PLC-controlled machine to do, they are off to bigger and better things in the real world out there.

Ascribing to your neighbors the qualities of a pre-programmed device, discounting their creativity and industriousness, then loading yourself up with guilt for sins against this strawman, is not my idea of morality.
 
It is natural to feel bad but it is Capitalism. Like one of the earlier comments said in European countries the training is much more in depth but you are obligated to be loyal, if one leaves their job in a European country that may be it, they may not get hired again anywhere. In the US, however, you have your freedom and you have to pay for it also (no free lunch). Also you have to remember there are many situations where laborers may have an attitude where they don't want to learn and they have a "you can't fire me attitude", so in some cases this is no fault but their own.
 
J
And what were those five people doing, anyway? Was it something creative and useful that only a human being could do? Apparantly not. Do we really want to waste a person's life doing a menial task which could be automated? I remember talking to an automation vendor recently who tried to install some automation gear in a 24 hour manned substation which would have enabled it to go unmanned. The local union refused to help them in any way. This vendor had to bring in electricians from some distance away to do the work and armed guards to defend the installation from attack. I have no sympathy for such luddites. None. The act of performing a repetitive, unintelligent, and uncreative task is something to be shunned and avoided wherever economically feasible. You did the right thing.
 
Fortunately, many of these consequences could be ameliorated by automated countermeasures that offset the excesses. Unfortunately, it usually takes a crisis to institute fundamental reform, though the looming economic meltdown stemming from the mounting federal debt offers just such an opportunity. Automation is destroying jobs faster than it can replace them. The benefits of the increased productivity go 100% to the owners of the machines, and none to the workers displaced. What are the consequences of this? What will happen if this trend continues and accelerates to include white collar jobs, and even jobs currently handled by PhDs?
 
This is a necessary evil of advancement, but hopefully those workers will move on to something better. Don’t forget about the telephone operators that were replaced by automated phone switches decades ago. At the time, no one wanted to fire the operators, but think about life today if every call you made still had to go through a person!
 
J
>What will happen if this trend continues and accelerates to include white collar jobs, and even jobs currently handled by PhDs?

Haven't you been looking around? It's happening right now.

I mean, is there anything truly redeeming about taking messages for someone else? Is there anything worthwhile about plotting curves on Smith charts when programs like SPICE can be used to more completely and accurately model an amplifier? Is there something about working out finite element analysis manually that makes it better than doing it on computer?

Some of these things used to be PHD material. No more. I call that an improvement.
 
F

Frank Mitchell

I have been in this business for 24 years. Only once did I see anything similar. It was an auto-welder that did a job faster and better with less rework than 5 welders. Four welders were eventually moved to other areas in the plant.

Most of the time workers are moved rather than sacked. Of course the first economic downturn and usually at least some may go at that time.

Considerations:
1. As a PLC programmer you will be unemployed a lot. You will have to relocate a lot(unless you work for a big company)
2. This country has to compete with the Japanese who are very automated.
3. We could adopt policies like India but then many of us would starve.
4. It is the responsibility of the management of the company that hired you to inform it's workers of future layoffs and train for other jobs. Usually if a company has the money to automate they have predicted a future of growth that involves keeping and moving to other areas the good employees. Lousy employees should have to go looking.
5. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the workers to see the handwriting on the wall. There are no guarantees in this life. Chances are that they found work somewhere else as the type of workers you described make low wages anyway and can usually find a job making that wage doing just about anything.
6. As a PLC programmer myself I have been unemployed may times. Whenever there are layoffs contract engineers are the first to go. While I am sypathetic to anyone that loses their job. The alternative to automation to me seems much worse.

frank
 
Frank Mitchell <[email protected]> wrote :

>an auto-welder that did a job faster and better with less
>rework than 5 welders. Four welders were eventually moved
>to other areas in the plant.

Jim Pinto responds :

Think about this - in some cases, new technology is replacing old with a 10:1 and even 100:1 ratio.
In some cases, it eliminates the need for old procedures and mechanisms.

How many typewriter-repair mechanics are there in the world today? And where (in the world) are they?

Frank continues :
>As a PLC programmer you will be unemployed a lot.

Jim :
New techniques are making PLCs and PLC-programming
into antiques - equivalent to typewriters sooner or later. PLC programming (relay-ladder-logic) was developed to assist electricians to program "programmable-logic-controllers" - in turn developed to replace relays. If PLC programmers think they are better off than
"typewriter mechanics" they are simply kidding themselves.

Frank continues :

>It is the responsibility of the management of the company that hired
>you to inform it's workers of future layoffs and train for other jobs.

Jim :
Don't expect management to "inform" you. They are simply
to busy to do any more than protect themselves in a fast-changing
business environment.

Frank :
>Ultimately it is the responsibility of the workers to see the
>handwriting on the wall. There are no guarantees in this life.

Jim :
Right on, Frank !

My advice to PLC programmers everywhere :

1/ Don't wait to be "informed" by an ill-informed
hierarchy in your declining company. Become pro-active!

2/ Upgrade your knowledge - learn C++, Java, PERL, LINUX and the latest programming tools. Pick up a teach-yourself book, and sit down to learn.

3/ Look for work in a growing business - one that needs your skills, knowledge and talents in logic & programming - web-development, eBiz applications, wireless apps, computer graphics, digital animation.

Feel free to email me with your background and
objectives. I'll do my best to advise.

Cheers:
jim
----------/
Jim Pinto
email : [email protected]
web: www.JimPinto.com
San Diego, CA., USA
----------/
 
J

Joe Jansen/ENGR/HQ/KEMET/US

Jim,
I have to add my comments here: I have been programming PLC's for 10 years now (geez, has it been that long?!?). I got my degree in Robotics and Automated Systems Technology in 1991. My instructor at the school would tell us from time to time that RLL was going the way of the dinosaur. Within 3 or 4 years, nobody would be using Ladder Logic anymore...

4 or 5 years ago, with the advent of the soft plc's, I again heard the prediction of the demise of the PLC. It wouldn't be but a few years, we
were all told, and PLC's would be extinct, and RLL with it.

And yet, here I sit, day after day, reading the A-list, er, I mean, programming RLL. We are in process of launching a new product line. I
will be doing all of the controls for several machines. Guess what the primary control system is. AB SLC 5/04. Programmed in RLL. Everything
else is HMI, drives, etc. All the action is in the PLC.

I will possibly begin to harken to the call of the demise of PLC's when there is something that can fill the niche. PC's don't do real time or
stability under the current OS system. Even Linux is heavily modified to do real time. (ie. RTLinux). The I/O capabilities of PC's are limited compared to PLC's. I agree that there are options, and using various bus protocols, you can build a respectable I/O system. However, there are times when sticking a simple I/O card into the rack is the right thing.

I just don't see anything that exists that can displace PLC's, given price etc (such as Automation Direct)

Per your other item regarding learning Linux, Java, etc. I would hope that this is obvious to most. I am doing the Java thing now, and will be
setting up a linux server this weekend (I hope!)

Thanks!

--Joe Jansen
 
W
>Jim Pinto responds :
>
>How many typewriter-repair mechanics are there in the
>world today? And where (in the world) are they?

Lots. I bet you haven't visited many third-world countries lately; the typewriter still has a lot of advantages when the infrastructure can't even supply power regularly!

Regards,

Willy Smith
Numatics, Inc.
Costa Rica
 
Top