What's new
What's new

The effect of automation in Manufacturing in the world

TDegenhart

Diamond
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Location
Geneva Illinois USA
No, mostly what government does is NOT pick winners and losers, but create the environment and framework for commerce and business to exist.

I would like to know what and where the dividing line is. US has provided all manner of subsidies for alternate fuels. Solar (who can forget Solaria?), wind, alcohol, public transportation... Even if money is not provided, direct or taxes, talking up a project is support.

Tom
 

Miguels244

Diamond
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Location
Denver, CO USA
No, mostly what government does is NOT pick winners and losers, but create the environment and framework for commerce and business to exist. Nevertheless, Its unclear what the point of all that your wrote is. Of course its gone on in the past and still does, that make it ok with you? You think corporate welfare or that the tax you pay depends on your relationship with a politician is ok? And some here, maybe you, seemingly want to invite municipal politicians in on the action?

We should be opposed to things that are unethical and wrong, the fact that you may never eliminate it entirely not notwithstanding.

The us government picks winners all the time.
Railroads, automotive, aerospace...all have had support.
Of course it all pales in comparison to the USA building an entire foreign policy stance based on supporting Standard Oil and its successors.
 

Ries

Diamond
Joined
Mar 15, 2004
Location
Edison Washington USA
The Canadian government has a history, going back over 100 years, of picking winners and losers. They used to pay steel mills to export, for example.
This was a pretty interesting part of history- in 1908, they were paying Canadian mills to export, and putting huge tariffs on British imports.
Iron Age - Google Books

then, of course, we have the whole Milk price support thing. Which includes government regulating who can produce milk, and how much they can sell it for, as well as the government paying to help market it abroad.

or, the recent Shopify deal wtih the Ontario provincial government giving them the monopoly on online sales of newly legal pot.

But there are dozens of examples going back decades.

The fact is, laws and regulations are enacted, in both the USA and Canada, at least 50% of the time, because somebody pays for them to be enacted. Which is almost always companies and business groups. And for their money, they expect advantage.
Hence, we have the US price supports for sugar, the import export bank, the pentagon (and Jared Kushner) acting as salesmen for Boeing and other military contractors, no bid contracts, laws that cover ONE company in the entire USA, and more.

And, yes, a lot of this affects automation.
The US government has paid for the development of automation, computers, and factory and manufacturing improvements in virtually every field, and has been the sole reason a lot of automation was developed to the point of being commercially viable.
Computers for artillery aiming and codebreaking, when there was no commercial justification.
Waterjets to cut titanium.
The commercial development of carbon fiber.
Satellite phones, GPS, the internet- The basic building blocks of ALL automation were non-profit government programs.


CNC machining as we know it had all the heavy lifting, financially, done by companies that were building the first NC machines for cost plus government contracts- nobody else could afford the price of those early machines.

During WW2, all the airplane fuselages and bulkheads were essentially hand crafted, riveted, and machined on manual mills.
By the mid 50s, the US government, thru the Heavy Press program, automated large size aerospace forging, building 50,000 ton and 100,000 ton presses with taxpayer dollars that eliminated all those manual machining jobs. Automation taking jobs- 1955- now.

Virtually every military aircraft to this day has parts made on those presses, along with most Boeing and Airbus planes.
The US government picked winners in that case- US companies.

If we had not spent tax dollars on those presses, the Russians, the French, and now, the Chinese, were all willing to, and their companies have benefitted.

There are no "private industry" presses of that scale except for ones that the respective governments gave to them in sweetheart deals- Can you spell "Alcoa"? There was a winner, picked by somebody...
 

akoncurtains

Plastic
Joined
Apr 2, 2019
Location
Fernandina Beach
Yes Off course, The Automation in manufacturing in the world is a really good in all factors because it is making things advance and automatic which is very fascinating. So, the new steps in any field on the basis of equipment's, techniques, safety all are Good.
 

Spinit

Titanium
Joined
May 13, 2007
Location
Central Texas
The Canadian government has a history, going back over 100 years, of picking winners and losers. They used to pay steel mills to export, for example.
This was a pretty interesting part of history- in 1908, they were paying Canadian mills to export, and putting huge tariffs on British imports.
Iron Age - Google Books

then, of course, we have the whole Milk price support thing. Which includes government regulating who can produce milk, and how much they can sell it for, as well as the government paying to help market it abroad.

or, the recent Shopify deal wtih the Ontario provincial government giving them the monopoly on online sales of newly legal pot.

But there are dozens of examples going back decades.

The fact is, laws and regulations are enacted, in both the USA and Canada, at least 50% of the time, because somebody pays for them to be enacted. Which is almost always companies and business groups. And for their money, they expect advantage.
Hence, we have the US price supports for sugar, the import export bank, the pentagon (and Jared Kushner) acting as salesmen for Boeing and other military contractors, no bid contracts, laws that cover ONE company in the entire USA, and more.

And, yes, a lot of this affects automation.
The US government has paid for the development of automation, computers, and factory and manufacturing improvements in virtually every field, and has been the sole reason a lot of automation was developed to the point of being commercially viable.
Computers for artillery aiming and codebreaking, when there was no commercial justification.
Waterjets to cut titanium.
The commercial development of carbon fiber.
Satellite phones, GPS, the internet- The basic building blocks of ALL automation were non-profit government programs.


CNC machining as we know it had all the heavy lifting, financially, done by companies that were building the first NC machines for cost plus government contracts- nobody else could afford the price of those early machines.

During WW2, all the airplane fuselages and bulkheads were essentially hand crafted, riveted, and machined on manual mills.
By the mid 50s, the US government, thru the Heavy Press program, automated large size aerospace forging, building 50,000 ton and 100,000 ton presses with taxpayer dollars that eliminated all those manual machining jobs. Automation taking jobs- 1955- now.

Virtually every military aircraft to this day has parts made on those presses, along with most Boeing and Airbus planes.
The US government picked winners in that case- US companies.

If we had not spent tax dollars on those presses, the Russians, the French, and now, the Chinese, were all willing to, and their companies have benefitted.

There are no "private industry" presses of that scale except for ones that the respective governments gave to them in sweetheart deals- Can you spell "Alcoa"? There was a winner, picked by somebody...

The industries subsidized were deemed critical to National interests and so government can bring to bear money to support it. As a rule it must be done on a case by case basis and fall to those who have responsibilities where they can do this. It does not always work very well as far as being cost effective.

Things like special interest and also corruption are always things which make the whole deal bad. It underlines the need for good government with checks and balances in a world where governments are effectively playing this high stakes game. There will always be great businessmen who achieve in spite of these factors and they are the ones who amaze. That is the best way encouraging true competition.

Granted there are so very many advancements in automation and tech which were not possible without the commitment of the government. For these types of tech the tech itself was very likely a secret one that the private sector would not understand or would feel was not a good investment.
 

hanermo

Titanium
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Location
barcelona, spain
The US tax policy stuff and local gov. allowances is definitely relevant.
I think the system is broken, myself, but ..

Re: automation think of apple iphones.
(I posted this elsewhere).

200M++ units per year, ordered in advance by apple.
65 machining ops per case.
Video online, yt.
Milled.
Lasered tiny holes for light to come out of leds, maybe 200 holes size human hair.

The 6$ cost foxconn gets for work, 9$ total, means == 6.5/65 == 0.10$ per-op machining [email protected]% profit.

Looking at the videos, thinking of You (us, anyone) machining an alu case to exacting aerospace tolerance for 0.10$.
No way.
A lot of the ops are quite slow, sandblasting, milling, many.

My opinion / pov is that like PCs in the past, IT in the past, internet operators => users in the past, automation scales up to near-zero marginal costs per unit per operation.
This is generally good as in goods get much cheaper to make, and can be "better" technically.

It is much better to have automated trucks delivering goods, vs drivers.
Robo-taxis at 1/10 the cost for 5$ to the airport vs 50$, etc.
To the economy, companies, and consumers.

But what will we do with the truck drivers, taxi drivers, excess machinists ?
The machinists will mostly be ok, but should they then pay for the truck drivers, taxi drivers, and endless similar manual workers pensions at 45 yo ?

Should we allow the corps who automate everything to make excess profits, and use them to pay off shareholders, while the remaining machinists and high-skills or high tech workers pay for the pensions the others already paid for but did not get ?

E.g. GM workers paid for their pensions, 30-40 years.
The money was not safely handled or stored, GM and big auto looted it.
The GM worker laid off after 20+ years has a right to the pension, that his salary was garnished for, for decades.

E.g.
Truckers / taxi might not have pensions.
But they (taxi, or big rig trucker) might have a value in the medallion aka permit, of 400k$.
They paid off a 300k loan over decades.
Is it right to take this away, after they paid taxes for 30 years ?

I don´t have an "answer" as such.

But I think "no-automation" is silly, as is no-benefits for those displaced.
Where the GDP benefits from the automation, a slice of it should, imo, be allocated to benefit those disadvantaged.
It is also much cheaper to cure in advance than treat later, by about 20x.
 

Spinit

Titanium
Joined
May 13, 2007
Location
Central Texas
The US tax policy stuff and local gov. allowances is definitely relevant.
I think the system is broken, myself, but ..

Re: automation think of apple iphones.
(I posted this elsewhere).

200M++ units per year, ordered in advance by apple.
65 machining ops per case.
Video online, yt.
Milled.
Lasered tiny holes for light to come out of leds, maybe 200 holes size human hair.

The 6$ cost foxconn gets for work, 9$ total, means == 6.5/65 == 0.10$ per-op machining [email protected]% profit.

Looking at the videos, thinking of You (us, anyone) machining an alu case to exacting aerospace tolerance for 0.10$.
No way.
A lot of the ops are quite slow, sandblasting, milling, many.

My opinion / pov is that like PCs in the past, IT in the past, internet operators => users in the past, automation scales up to near-zero marginal costs per unit per operation.
This is generally good as in goods get much cheaper to make, and can be "better" technically.

It is much better to have automated trucks delivering goods, vs drivers.
Robo-taxis at 1/10 the cost for 5$ to the airport vs 50$, etc.
To the economy, companies, and consumers.

But what will we do with the truck drivers, taxi drivers, excess machinists ?
The machinists will mostly be ok, but should they then pay for the truck drivers, taxi drivers, and endless similar manual workers pensions at 45 yo ?

Should we allow the corps who automate everything to make excess profits, and use them to pay off shareholders, while the remaining machinists and high-skills or high tech workers pay for the pensions the others already paid for but did not get ?

E.g. GM workers paid for their pensions, 30-40 years.
The money was not safely handled or stored, GM and big auto looted it.
The GM worker laid off after 20+ years has a right to the pension, that his salary was garnished for, for decades.

E.g.
Truckers / taxi might not have pensions.
But they (taxi, or big rig trucker) might have a value in the medallion aka permit, of 400k$.
They paid off a 300k loan over decades.
Is it right to take this away, after they paid taxes for 30 years ?

I don´t have an "answer" as such.

But I think "no-automation" is silly, as is no-benefits for those displaced.
Where the GDP benefits from the automation, a slice of it should, imo, be allocated to benefit those disadvantaged.
It is also much cheaper to cure in advance than treat later, by about 20x.

Yes pensions are not really protected. Add t that they are now very rare. 401K's could be a lot better as can be Social Security. Automation advances will be amazing.
 








 
Top