Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Bite me.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                           

Child Labor / Automated Robot Worker Efficiency Comparison Rating

Get Nike to stop using child labor by assuring them that the money will keep flowing if they switch to robots.
  (+3, -1)
(+3, -1)
  [vote for,
against]

Those "woke" companies like Nike, that lecture us on how politically correct and virtuous they are compared to us need to make lots of money selling sneakers to poor middle city kids for hundreds of dollars a pair so their parents who are on food stamps can contribute what little money they have to the mighty Nike fortune. To turn this profit they crave, those child labor factories in China have to keep humming, those sneakers that cost a buck each to make aren't gonna stitch themselves.

So how does the west compete and free the children from the Nike work motivation whip? Automation of course, but to do so we'll need to rank the robots doing this work by how well they compete against their human child labor counterparts.

Introducing the "FCLR" system, the Forced Child Labor Ranking system that is used to gauge how many kids can be replaced by a single unit. So if a sneaker making robot has a "14 child hour FCLR" it can make as many sneakers in an hour as 14 child slave laborers.

It would also have a threshold indicator showing that it's making more money than the slavery factories so even Nike might consider it at some point because it would increase profits. Although it would have to be a whooooole lot cheaper to get Nike on board.

You also gotta wonder about a company whose slogan was inspired by the last words of a convicted murderer.

doctorremulac3, Feb 11 2020

robots can't sew clothes https://twitter.com...1166772162721656838
[calum, Feb 17 2020]

[link]






       The free market says that human labor will always be cheaper than robot labor [-]
sninctown, Feb 12 2020
  

       That's incorrect, [snin]; there are some functions where human labour is never able to compete effectively with mechanization. The Industrial Revolution proved that conclusively. For weaving, printing, cutting, making small metal components, precisely and repeatably, indeed any simple repetetive task, a purpose designed machine will always outperform humans, which begs the question "Why are their no robot politicians ?" Probably because a robot that can tell lies glibly and convincingly time after time hasn't been developed yet.   

       // we'll need to rank the robots doing this work by how well they compete against their human child labor counterparts. //   

       This already happens. But the pressure will always be to install those robots in the same low-cost low-regulation geographies, to maximise revenues and minimise costs; that way, you need fewer child slaves to load, service and maintain the robots. So some ex-slaves starve, of course, but that's not your problem.   

       // You also gotta wonder about a company whose slogan was inspired by the last words of a convicted murderer. //   

       Wonder what, exactly ? "Is this an opportune time to buy more shares ?"
8th of 7, Feb 12 2020
  

       I mean in general, people gotta eat, so people will find some job to do at a salary which is slightly cheaper than a robot for that job.   

       Modest proposal: ensure the 1st and 2nd amendment rights of every human on Earth by giving every human (regardless of age, race, sex, origin, etc.) an Internet connection and a firearm. Help people help themselves.
sninctown, Feb 12 2020
  

       //The free market says that human labor will always be slightly cheaper than robot labor.//   

       Well, tell the free market I said it's wrong, but do it nicely, I don't want to hurt its feelings. I have a Roomba style automated vacuum that I paid for one time. It cost me about the same as two cleaning person visits to my house. Plus I don't have to wear pants when it's vacuuming. I do, but I don't have to and that's important to me.   

       Automation or robots will eventually replace all manual labor jobs. When robots start making robots the cost will plummet. Remember, this technology is in its infancy. Give it 600 years and all work will be optional.
doctorremulac3, Feb 12 2020
  

       //Modest proposal: ensure the 1st and 2nd amendment rights of every human on Earth by giving every human (regardless of age, race, sex, origin, etc.) an Internet connection and a firearm. Help people help themselves.//   

       Love it. Got my vote.   

       Wait... I shot my first gun at about 5 or 6, I think that's probably an appropriate age to become versed in firearms.
doctorremulac3, Feb 12 2020
  

       You're assuming perfect interchangeability, which doesn't exist.   

       A machine to (for example) coil small springs will have a high capital cost, but will produce better product at a lower unit cost and a higher speed than human labour. Humans literally can't compete and still earn enough to live.   

       A fully automated machine to sew a shoe together is much more challenging, so humans remain competitive.   

       Currently, a human taxi driver still competes effectively with an autonomous vehicle, but that's changing ...   

       // Give it 600 years //   

       That's probably about an order of magnitude too long.   

       It took about 300 years for the West to go from a largely subsistence agrarian economy to an industrialized semi mechanized economy (1650 -1950).   

       The technology itself is a force multiplier. Compare 1950's systems with current ones. It only took 66 years between the first powered flight and the first moon landing. There were humans for whom both events took place within their memory.   

       You need to lose your sense of proportion....
8th of 7, Feb 12 2020
  

       // Give it 600 years and all work will be optional. //   

       That's the optimistic scenario. More likely, a single monopolist will have enslaved the entire world.
sninctown, Feb 12 2020
  

       I'm optimistic that we'll overcome our issues and be freed from the shackles of labor by our tools, in this case robots, so we can get about the business of colonizing the stars. We'll, the planets around the stars anyway.
doctorremulac3, Feb 12 2020
  

       I hope you're right. I suppose since there's no animal monopoly, it suggests some hidden rule in nature that preserves competition between different animals.
sninctown, Feb 12 2020
  

       //I wear pants//   

       snob
Voice, Feb 12 2020
  

       // freed from the shackles of labor by our tools, in this case robots, //   

       You'd be better to start rehearsing your grovelling technique for when you abase yourself before your new metallic overlords.   

       // there's no animal monopoly //   

       Yes there is, one of the playing pieces is a scotch terrier.
8th of 7, Feb 12 2020
  

       //It only took 66 years between the first powered flight and the first moon landing. There were humans for whom both events took place within their memory.//   

       Many of whom traveled on jet airplanes later in their lives. The read about man achieving powered flight, they watched man walk on the moon (on a television set) and they looked down on the Earth as they flew on a jet aircraft from one city to another at hundreds of miles per hour while sipping wine.   

       I'm hoping there's another generation that'll match that amazing experience.
doctorremulac3, Feb 12 2020
  

       Not if the eco-fascists get their evil way and stifle innovation and experiment.
8th of 7, Feb 12 2020
  

       Naa, they'll cause problems but lose eventually. They're mindless little drones just doing what their told. Free people will get fed up and pull their plug.   

       OK, let's look at a theoretical person born in 1884. There have to have been many people who did all the following:   

       Born into a world where there was no such thing as a bicycle, on their 1 year old birthday, it's invented. There are no cars. At 2 years old, Benz patents the first practical auto, the Motorwagon.   

       At 11, the radio is invented.   

       At 14 plastic is invented.   

       At 19 the first airplane takes flight.   

       At 24 they drove the first widely available car.   

       At 30 they flew on the first commercial propeller driven airplane service.   

       At 34 they had electricity in their home.   

       At 35 they purchased a radio and listened to radio shows.   

       At 54 they bought a television.   

       At 70 they flew on a jet airliner.   

       At 85 they watched man walk on the moon on another television.   

       At 87 they bought a pocket calculator.   

       And at 100, a relative handed then the first cellphone and said "Go ahead and make a call. There are no wires!"
doctorremulac3, Feb 12 2020
  

       There is no rational causal association between past and future progress.
Voice, Feb 12 2020
  

       And by the way, the "environmental movement" is just re- branded totalitarianism. Fascists never package the new and improved fascism the same.   

       Ask the progressives why they're shutting down nuclear energy. It's because they need to tax carbon fuels, clean, safe nuclear energy doesn't make them any money. They don't give a damn about the environment. Their followers do, but the power mad megalomaniacs behind the movement couldn't care less. Happiness for one of those guys is flying in their gas guzzling private jet over thousands of people waiting in soup lines. What's the point of being rich if everybody is rich? It's only fun if people besides them are suffering.
doctorremulac3, Feb 12 2020
  

       //There is no rational causal association between past and future progress.//   

       I'm just wondering if there will ever be a group of people who will experience the amount of progress like the example of the kid in a world without cars or even bikes that grew up to fly on jets, watch man walk on the Moon on their TV and use a computer.
doctorremulac3, Feb 12 2020
  

       //most progress in science and industry comes from improving on and expanding what has been done before.//   

       This is true. But what I meant (should have said) is the *speed* of said progress. It's impossible to predict how long it will take to accomplish a given scientific or engineering breakthrough. Past performance is not an indicator of future results. We could be on the Kurzweil timeline or progress may peter out entirely for a variety of reasons. Look at the progress in processors for example. We're getting half the speed improvements we used to. The only sign it will speed up again is the repeated S curve pattern in the past. But no one has started engineering to mass produce post-silicon processors, and the physics police are getting pretty adamant about smaller features on traditional chips. We could go full 3-D but the heat problem hasn't been solved. So there's no way to look at that incredible improvement and thereby predict future progress. We can only look at the industry as it stands for that.
Voice, Feb 13 2020
  

       Heaviside ...   

       Sometimes there is a step-function. The transition from "natural" energy sources (animals, wind, waterwheels) to steam power. The largely unanticipated jump from thermionic devices to solid state. The leap from piston engines and propellers to gas turbines ...   

       Waterwheels never went away; the Pelton wheel continues to serve with distinction in hydroelectric schemes. Thermionic emission persisted in the form of CRT for decades and then nearly vanished from the mainstream in a few years.   

       While it is not possible to say how long it will be before everyone's zooming round in flying cars, wearing one-piece silver suits, and living on one-a-week nutrition tablets, it is possible to not only say "the future will be different" - which was not the case until about 1700 - but also "the future will be very, very different, and in your lifetime".   

       Innovation begets innovation. The power and density of CPUs doesn't need to go up much, if indeed at all ... what matters is that the unit cost comes down. Near-supercomputer power becomes ubiquitous. All sorts of tasks become trivialized (just look at the computing power crammed into an cellular phone handset or a games console - an entertainment system, not a tool). Then, the interval between a theoretical advance and its practical implementation drops from decades to months ...   

       How fast could Boulton & Watt have innovated better steam engines if they had had a CAD system driving a CNC lathe and 3D printers ? The inspiration -> design -> build -> test -> rollout process becomes very short.   

       And if you invent a better mousetrap, your collaborator on the other side of the planet can now duplicate your design the same day.   

       Of course, the social consequences of this are unquantifiable.
8th of 7, Feb 13 2020
  

       I think it's fair to say that technical advances lead to other technical advances exponentially rather than in steps. So an innovation or new technology isn't just another step on a ladder going up, it's more horsepower added to a car already going forward creating cumulative results of all the technologies going before it.   

       The water wheel was built using simple mechanics and wood craft but walking on the Moon was the cumulation of advances in rocket, computer and materials sciences to name just a few. In other words, walking on the Moon wasn't invented like the wheel or the bow and arrow. Likewise future breakthroughs will be an amalgamation of previous steps causing progress to accelerate like the car analogy rather than move up another step like the ladder example.   

       This actually needs to be in the Age of Ascendance post.
doctorremulac3, Feb 13 2020
  

       Most advances are incremental; some - rarer, but more significant - are step changes.
8th of 7, Feb 13 2020
  

       Electricity was a step change, biggest since the wheel or mastery of fire, but following advancements that branched off from electricity, radio, TV and the computer for instance were were linked to that core invention and basically happened almost all at once.   

       So while the discovery and research into electricity took hundreds of years, the harnessing and application of it for all these related technologies happened within a very short period of time.
doctorremulac3, Feb 13 2020
  

       The computer doesn't fit in that group, although it uses electricity. Computers are data processors, and fit not with electricity but with the likes of the Babbage engine and Hollerith machines.   

       Electricity is just an enabling technology in that case - it's the advance in information theory that's the true innovation.
8th of 7, Feb 13 2020
  

       Point is the modern computer and the internet are manipulated electrical signals.
doctorremulac3, Feb 13 2020
  

       So Nike schools teaching life,social interaction robotics and shoe making. Manufacturing better human beings.   

       The ones in control, paid the big bucks possibly because of brains, have the reigns to morally decide and evolve how they want shoe the globe's society.
wjt, Feb 15 2020
  

       // Manufacturing better human beings. //   

       "More human than human", according to Eldon Tyrell, and Rachel ...   

       We like the owl, too.
8th of 7, Feb 15 2020
  

       Since the universe doesn't really do perfect loops but rather spirals, visions of the future will always be slightly skewed.
wjt, Feb 16 2020
  

       //the power mad megalomaniacs behind the movement couldn't care less//   

       OK, it appears there must be several steps to establish this claim, viz.,
1. Establish that there are powerful individuals behind the movement (rather than running opportunistically alongside it).
2. Establish that they are substantially homogeneous in their outlook (as opposed to having a range of different motivations and intentions).
3. Establish that they don't care.
4. Establish that other participants in the movement are substantially under their control - that is, that they are indeed "followers".
5. Work out how to get people to follow you while staying behind them - which, if real, would be a most useful trick. (Pioneering work in this field was done by the Duke of Plaza Toro, but it's not clear how well his method performed under stress).
  

       Of these steps, #3 is probably the easy one. The others call for positive evidence; would you care to present any?
pertinax, Feb 17 2020
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle