New COVID lockdowns in China freshen supply chain pressures

[Lovebug]

And you don't have to pay even minimum wage.

"Ideally" your staff would consist of one "bin loader" to ensure that the mechanical cooks had the raw materials needed to prepare the food and one "mechanic" to ensure that the mechanical cooks were functional.

The "bin loader" would only have to have enough training to know "The stuff in the RED containers goes in the RED bins." (and the like) while the "mechanic" would only have to have enough training to know that "If 'Module 6' breaks down, pull it out of its slot, insert a new 'Module 6', and send the defective 'Module 6' off to 'Central Maintenance'." (the receipt of a 'Module 6' at 'Central Maintenance' would result in the automated dispatch of a replacement 'Module 6' to the outlet which sent the one to 'Central Maintenance'). Since next to no actual skills would be required on the parts of either the "bin loader" or the "mechanic", they would qualify for minimum wage. The people with some actual knowledge and training would all be located at 'Central Maintenance' and far fewer would be required there than if the "mechanic" at an outlet were actually required to be able to fix anything.

Not only that, but you would be 100% certain that anytime you visited "Abdhul von Rostock's House of Siamese Pyrogies" and ordered a "#10" it would be absolutely identical to any "#10" that you ordered in any other "Abdhul von Rostock's House of Siamese Pyrogies" location.

I'm sorry. I was being called away and didn't explain my comment. We, husband and I, frown upon bad hygiene, people sweating and talking over, and into, food. Automation would cut down on that, although one might find the occasional metal shaving and/or screw in the lettuce.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Exactly, so if the bolt factory reduced its staff from 1,000 to 100 employees, that would (potentially) reduce the (global?) bolt market by 900 people. In other words, no big deal at all.

Quite right - provided that those 900 people consumed nothing but bolts.

However, I suspect that those 900 people also bought things like clothes, food, recreational materials, services, and housing.

Yep, but by a very small amount. Mr. Bolt Local may see his income rise from $100K/year to $300K/year. He might make as much as a lawyer then.

Indeed, and Mr. Bolt Local was one of the lucky ones who got retained. Ms. Bolt Cutter who didn't get retained may see her income fall from $100,000/year to ~$8,000 per year.

Again, for that to become major problem it would have to become very widespread. When power tools replaced hand tools it did not reduce the number of carpenters.

That was because the population was expanding rapidly and so was the housing market (as well as the people's ability to pay for housing [due to the release of pent up wartime savings]).

 

[RAMOSS]

Yeah, but the downside is the people who are replaced by machines. The more technical jobs get, the more training and education the workforce needs to meet those requirements. Given the high cost of education and training in this country, it isn't an easy thing for people to do without ending up in serious debt. Ideally, the companies making these moves toward automation will train existing employees so they can transition, but there's nothing to guarantee that.

If the education is needed, the companies who need that education will find a way to train.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm sorry. I was being called away and didn't explain my comment. We, husband and I, frown upon bad hygiene, people sweating and talking over, and into, food. Automation would cut down on that, although one might find the occasional metal shaving and/or screw in the lettuce.

Abdhul von Rostock is planning on opening "Abdhul von Rostock's House of Siamese Pyrogies" which will serve 25 different dishes and be open 19 hours per day seven days a week. At $20/hr, Abdhul would pay a cook around $5,259,600 (over the 45 year employment span of the cook) to do that.

HOWEVER Abdhul's up-front cost for doing it using human labour would be $0.00 while Abdhul's up-front cost for using a "RoboChef" would be $5,259,600 (the cost of running and/or maintaining the "RoboChef" is NOT an upfront cost nor is the approximately $2,629,800 that I would pay in interest on that $5,259,600 at 5%p.a amortized over 20 years).

Abdhul is currently working as a sous-chef and earning $19.00 per hour.

Abdhul's bank laughes in his face when he asks it for a loan well in excess of $6,000,000 in order to open his restaurant EVEN THOUGH he has a market study showing that he has an 85% chance of becoming a booming success.

PS - You do know that sarcasm and irony

​

do not translate to print very well.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If the education is needed, the companies who need that education will find a way to train.

Indeed, the companies will find a way to train the smaller workforce that is actually required.

The most probable course of action for the companies will be for them to lobby for "increased public technical education spending" and/or "training assistance grants (from the government)".

 

[ElChupacabra]

If the education is needed, the companies who need that education will find a way to train.

Or hire qualified people and spare themselves the trouble of having to fund training/education. It's often a mixed bag as to what companies choose to do.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Or hire qualified people and spare themselves the trouble of having to fund training/education. It's often a mixed bag as to what companies choose to do.

The choice between "training workers (and possibly losing them to the competition)" and "hiring workers (by offering them more money than the competition)" is strictly one of economics.

The decision matrix looks a bit like this:

​

1. If a company could have 100% of its training costs "defrayed by economic incentives" (read as "have truckloads of 'Gummint Money' dumped in its lap"), then the obvious choice would be to train workers.
2. If the increased wage cost of hiring trained workers away from the competition was higher than the training costs for the same number of workers, then the obvious choice would be to train workers.
3. If the increased wage cost of hiring workers away from the competition was lower than the training costs for the same number of workers, then the obvious choice would be NOT to train workers.
4. If the cost of training workers was higher than the economic benefit BUT would ensure that the incumbent was re-elected, then there would be lots of 'Gummint Money' available to train workers.
5. If the cost of training workers was lower than the economic benefit BUT would ensure that the incumbent was re-elected, then there would be lots of 'Gummint Money' available to train workers.
6. If the cost of training workers was higher than the economic benefit BUT would ensure that the incumbent was defeated, then there would be no 'Gummint Money' available to train workers.
7. If the cost of training workers was lower than the economic benefit BUT would ensure that the incumbent was defeated, then there would be no 'Gummint Money' available to train workers.

 

[multivita-man]

This is getting ugly. It's like one of those dystopian scenes of a futuristic Schwarzenegger film. Not sure how much more people are gonna take

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

This is getting ugly. It's like one of those dystopian scenes of a futuristic Schwarzenegger film. Not sure how much more people are gonna take

I appreciate the fact that you have included three graphics from Twitter in your post. Unfortunately my "legacy" computer system doesn't want to display them. Do you have some other link to them?