Robots Could Fill 3.5 Million Jobs in Japan
Posted by Bezhou Feng on 08 April 2008 - 14:17 · 19 comments & 7378 views
About the Author
Full name: Bezhou Feng
Forum name: Sagittarius
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Bezhou Feng
Forum name: Sagittarius
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by Magallanes on 08 Apr 2008 - 14:39
- is it needing to maintain the population always growing ?
-
#3 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 08 Apr 2008 - 15:45
- I remember watching something on TV talking about how the reproduction rate in Japan is low, apparently due to the fact that children=money. In a way, I guess that's smart thinking, as some people keep popping out children despite being absolutely broke. However, if everyone's playing it smart, then there's no baby making.
What I find funny though is that Japan has low reproduction rates while China has laws on making babies.
-
(7 replies)
#4 Posted by Enkazin on 08 Apr 2008 - 16:05
- Well, at least they are talking about it positively, and not using robots to cut back on paying out wages. Thats the one thing I hate about here, Greed is taking away people's livelyhood, and replacing them with 'bots. Just out of curiosity, what would happen if robots did 99% fo the work required in a country and no one could afford to buy the stuff they are building for lack of having a job?
-
#4.1 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 08 Apr 2008 - 16:24
- (Enkazin said @ #4)what would happen if robots did 99% fo the work required in a country and no one could afford to buy the stuff they are building for lack of having a job?
They don't care, as long as those companies make more money... -
#4.3 Posted by
markjensen on 08 Apr 2008 - 19:09
- I am a robotics engineer. Generally, robots are used for jobs that are hazardous (can cause injury), such as heavy lifting, or require accuracy that a human cannot deliver. The cars we build require welds in specific places to ensure proper crumpling in crash testing. Sealant is required in specific locations and amounts to prevent water leaks and wind noise, without getting so much on that it squeezes out and causes other production problems.
Robots are needed in many places, no doubt about it. -
#4.4 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 09 Apr 2008 - 03:51
- (markjensen said @ #4.3)I am a robotics engineer. Generally, robots are used for jobs that are hazardous (can cause injury), such as heavy lifting, or require accuracy that a human cannot deliver. The cars we build require welds in specific places to ensure proper crumpling in crash testing. Sealant is required in specific locations and amounts to prevent water leaks and wind noise, without getting so much on that it squeezes out and causes other production problems.
Robots are needed in many places, no doubt about it.
Now if only we could get them to replace politicians. Think of it: machines doing only what they're programmed to do with little intelligence to make any real decisions. Sounds just like government officials! Not to mention the money we'll save, minus the regular maintenance for them.
-
#4.5 Posted by The_Decryptor on 09 Apr 2008 - 07:39
- (Dakkaroth said @ #4.4)(markjensen said @ #4.3)I am a robotics engineer. Generally, robots are used for jobs that are hazardous (can cause injury), such as heavy lifting, or require accuracy that a human cannot deliver. The cars we build require welds in specific places to ensure proper crumpling in crash testing. Sealant is required in specific locations and amounts to prevent water leaks and wind noise, without getting so much on that it squeezes out and causes other production problems.
Robots are needed in many places, no doubt about it.
Now if only we could get them to replace politicians. Think of it: machines doing only what they're programmed to do with little intelligence to make any real decisions. Sounds just like government officials! Not to mention the money we'll save, minus the regular maintenance for them.
But, like real politicians, we have to worry about the people controlling them.
Edit: And with the government's track record on computer security, odds are you would just load up a web page, enter "admin" and "password", And you'd have complete control over the robots. -
#4.6 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 09 Apr 2008 - 17:07
- Which is no different than simply using a brick of cash with real people in charge.
-
#4.7 Posted by zaber on 09 Apr 2008 - 21:43
- (Enkazin said @ #1)Well, at least they are talking about it positively, and not using robots to cut back on paying out wages. Thats the one thing I hate about here, Greed is taking away people's livelyhood, and replacing them with 'bots. Just out of curiosity, what would happen if robots did 99% fo the work required in a country and no one could afford to buy the stuff they are building for lack of having a job?
Long-term-wise you are completely wrong, if machines permanently put people out of jobs our ancestors would would have been homeless centuries ago and we would have starved during the industrial revolution. Using your logic we would still spend hours rubbing two sticks together to create fire, as the invention of a lighter would mean that the firestarter would loose his job.
If robots did 99% of the work in a country it would be A LOT BETTER OFF. The only reason we don't have to get children to work any more is because of machines have made us more efficient. yes putting machines into a factory will displace people for a while but over time they get reabsorbed into new jobs.
If one manufacturer gets a new machine he gets more profit for a short while, but soon his competitors buy the same machines to match his price, and they force the price of the products down through competition, making the goods cheeper for everyone so we all become better off.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by LipSmacker on 08 Apr 2008 - 16:35
- Simple Solution: send our millions of unemployed over there to work.
:lol:-
#6 Posted by leesmithg on 08 Apr 2008 - 17:36
- Well it seems in the UK, we have a lot of unemployed, they won't work.
Lets do a deal with the Japanese, they take our lazy and tongue tied and we will take a 70 inch HDTV each in return for free.
Everyones a winner.
-
(1 reply)
#7 Posted by SpacEmAN17 on 09 Apr 2008 - 02:27
- It may be good for countries are aren't meeting labor requirements, but with countries already facing problems with unemployment this can't be good for our future as far as being replaced by robots.
-
#7.1 Posted by zaber on 09 Apr 2008 - 21:46
Once again...
Long-term-wise you are completely wrong, if machines permanently put people out of jobs our ancestors would would have been homeless centuries ago and we would have starved during the industrial revolution. Using your logic we would still spend hours rubbing two sticks together to create fire, as the invention of a lighter would mean that the firestarter would loose his job.
If robots did 99% of the work in a country it would be A LOT BETTER OFF. The only reason we don't have to get children to work any more is because of machines have made us more efficient. yes putting machines into a factory will displace people for a while but over time they get reabsorbed into new jobs.
If one manufacturer gets a new machine he gets more profit for a short while, but soon his competitors buy the same machines to match his price, and they force the price of the products down through competition, making the goods cheeper for everyone so we all become better off.
-
#8 Posted by Furrybeagle on 09 Apr 2008 - 02:57
- Why does a certain episode from the Animatrix immediately come to mind?
"Seniors are pushing back their retirement until they are 65 years old, day care centers are being built so that more women can work during the day, and there is a move to increase the quota of foreign laborers. But none of these can beat the shrinking workforce," said Takao Kobayashi, who worked on the study. The current fertility rate is 1.3 babies per woman, far below the level needed to maintain the population, while the government estimates that 40 percent of the population will be over 65 by 2055, raising concerns about who will look after the greying population.