It's unreasonable workload/productivity requirements that are the problem.
The article quotes a rate of 300 items per hour.
If it were 100 items per hour, you'd still be talking about ten cents per item of labour cost.
No-one would care if their items cost that much more.
More and more facilities are becoming robot centric. The only reason humans exist in the robot facilities is because they do something robots don't do well yet. Usually grabbing objects of varying shapes, sizes, and weights.
It's unsurprising that these facilities are moving at such a pace that they're becoming increasingly dangerous and inhumane.
I have, in the past or present, watched with immense data fidelity as humans at these facilities became the weakest link and that weakness only grew as robot evolution further outpaced them.
I'm convinced that the only humane future for these facilities is one entirely devoid of humans. I doubt you'll ever convince management to slow the robots way down and keep them like that.
There are robots available today that are a lot less dangerous than the Kiva/Amazon deathfloors. But I don't see that remaining true as KPIs endlessly march upwards.
Amazon is working to automate their logistics as much as possible --but I think they should do it in a way more human way. They should design their process with people in mind and keep people's well being and limits in mind when designing as well as when managing people.
Unionization is not an answer, well it might be but only temporarily as most people in fulfilment will be out of the picture. Given that, I would hope Amazon does the right thing, but I kind of doubt it.
The reality is our pop growth is slowing so that these low skills jobs are being eliminated might not be detrimental to our future workforce. The problem is we have sent medium/semi skilled jobs overseas and didn't prepare our workforce for it nor did we "tax" the job shipping to compensate the injured (affected) workforce. We're slapping some tariffs 30 years too late, but I guess it's better then nothing.
A lot of damage to be undone, as you mentioned. I’m not against automation, by any means, just how the gains and productivity from it is currently distributed (versus more equitable models).
Minimum wage you can think of as subsidizing automation—pay more or automate. That's not bad to the worker, and not a policy I'd complain about, but the tech industry doesn't deserve the subsidy.
UBI is more neutral, you pay more whether you automate or not, and the worker still has more negotiating power. This is better.
Tell me how does UBI work in a place like Cuba, Haiti or the Philippines?
Yang is saying $1000 per adult per month (he used to use the more undefined “per person” previously.
At 1000/adult/month one, it’s too much and the economy can’t afford that and two, despite that, that’s not enough for a family of four with two adults two unemancipated ($2000/mo).
Amazon deserves to have their say, and there's nothing wrong with your comments per se, but if you're really a social media ambassador be honest about it and don't pretend your comments are entirely independent.
I know two companies which have been trying to robotise their biggest warehouses since the begin 90s; after many updates in hardware and software it still does not work for the reasons you state (and probably more).