Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing them with robots

Re:Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing the... by nerdponx on Wednesday October 10, 2018 @07:52PM (#18189966)

It's not just about passing the savings onto consumers. Even if you deduct 10-15% for tax evasion, most of that money will end up recirculating into the economy.

The point I was clumsily trying to make is that it doesn't really matter. There are forces in the US economy that lead to strong feedback loops of negative welfare for individuals and the families of individuals who come on economic hard times. So while your shirt gets $2 cheaper, someone out there is getting addicted to Klonopin while their wife buys bread on food stamps, and their kid grows up to be a gangbanger, who kills another kid at the age of 15, because he had anger issues and they couldn't afford therapy.

I'm being deliberately hyperbolic, but I hope it helps illustrate the point. In the USA it's shockingly easy to end up in a vicious cycle of poverty that hurts everyone, not just the person with no money. Net welfare gain could well be negative from the situation described above.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing the... by sanxiyn on Thursday October 11, 2018 @12:00AM (#18190900)

I think what you are saying is automation is harmful when there is no safety net. I tend to agree. I think the right solution is to set up safety net. In particular, I don't think stopping automation is the right solution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uniqlo cut 90% of staff at one warehouse by replacing the... by int_19h on Thursday October 11, 2018 @05:19AM (#18191988)

The question is, who is going to pay for that safety net, and is it really still a "safety net" when a majority of the citizens have to rely on it?

It could be argued that since automation drives the need for these arrangements, it ought to be taxed accordingly to pay for the measures that mitigate them.

[ Parent | on HN ]