El fin del trabajo

[wanderer]

Yo sueño con la robotización explícita de la política (que implícita ya la tenemos, además de mala).

¡Ala, ahí queda eso!

[lectorhinfluyente1984]

Yo sueño con la robotización explícita de la política (que implícita ya la tenemos, además de mala).

¡Ala, ahí queda eso!

[pollo]

Hacía tiempo (desde Octubre) que no pasaba por aquí, pero veo que esto sigue tan interesante como siempre.

[NosTrasladamus]

http://www.dsausa.org/shorter_work_weeks

Why We Should Demand a Shorter Workweek

By Dustin Guastella

If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he robs the capitalist. - K. Marx

Recently a Chicago firm made headlines when it was revealed that they allowed their workers less than six minutes a day in the bathroom. Naturally, people were outraged, but this is an old story; capital and labor have been fighting over working time since the earliest pangs of the bourgeois revolutions. In 1750, Philadelphian carpenters demanded a ten-hour day; by 1866 the International Working Men’s Association declared the fight for an eight-hour day its top priority; that same year, across the pond, many in the American labor movement did the same. And by 1937, the demand for a shorter workday was largely met with the passing of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fast-forward 77 years and we are still appalled by capital’s insistence on limiting the free time of workers. What is it about capitalism (and capitalists) that insists on controlling every minute of the worker’s day? Despite numerous appeals by liberal economists who argue that shorter working hours and longer lunch breaks will lead to boosts in productivity, and despite immense capital accumulation and productivity growth, the American working day has not taken a serious hit since the early 20th century.

There is something about workers having free time that is deeply unsettling to employers and threatening to capital. Today, proletarianized white-collar workers are required to work 50-60 hours a week. Low-wage workers in service, retail and hospitality industries are expected to work similarly long hours spread across two or three jobs. All this occurs during a period where capitalism enjoys healthy growth rates, while capitalists enjoy tremendous gains and the income/wealth gap steadily swells. Further, productivity is up and the unemployment rate stubbornly shrinks (although we wait with bated breath to hear the Bureau of Labor Statistics tell us that six percent unemployment is the new normal).

Shorter workweeks are certainly possible even under neoliberal capitalism. Labor economists have looked at the relationship between productivity and hours and found that workers’ demands for more free time are not antithetical to capital’s demand to “valorize itself,” as Marx puts it. In fact, if implemented creatively, shorter workweeks could even ease the burden of unemployment while boosting productivity.

The mainstream commentariat often talk about the virtues of capitalism and technology to fix social problems (who needs politics anyway?). When it comes to the workweek we learn that as technology advances we are bound for a flexible work-play future where working hours will naturally decrease as productivity soars, work itself will be easy, fun and enjoyable and our non-work lives will be presumably as satisfying.

If we overlook the paternalistic and technocratic ways in which Google and the silicon valley cohort plan on leading us into the bean-bag office of our dreams these messages are still profoundly inaccurate in that throughout the entire period of what is called the “information revolution” we have not seen work become more fulfilling or less time-consuming: the 40-hour week is fast deteriorating for white-collar workers in unique and often subliminal ways and “flexibility” has ensured that all workers are always unofficially on-call. And while low-wage workers object to having too few hours, their free time is even more tenuous as they are only made aware of their schedules days in advance and are expected to fill in for no-shows at a moment’s notice. It seems Andre Gorz was correct in observing that capitalism “has no room for authentically free time.”

As technology has boosted productivity into astronomic levels, we have not seen any shortening of the workweek or even a relaxing of the lunch break in fact we have seen just the opposite. This, I think, suggests that the length of the workweek was never about productivity or capital accumulation. It was and is about social control.

The likelihood that our Chicago-based employer was genuinely interested in boosting worker productivity (and thus profit margins) by shortening the bathroom time of workers is slim. More likely was the employer’s contempt for workers having discretionary time, during which they were being paid, to take care of their own necessary biological functions.

This contempt does not necessarily stem from employers’ hatred of workers as people (although this may often be the case), instead it is born out of the relationship between the employers and the labor they are purchasing. Once the employer or capitalist buys labor power through wages, they expect to have all of it regardless of productivity or biological needs. Similarly, if the capitalists’ sports car had to spend 15 minutes a day peeing and several hours eating they would be equally conniving in thinking of ways to dominate all the time they could out of that car regardless of whether they need it. This relationship between employer and employed is an important aspect often missing from the debate about work hours. Even Keynesians (and Keynes himself) tend to overstate capitalists’ drive for higher productivity and maximization of profit; they claim it is irrational, anti-productive and cruel for employers to dictate and supervise employees every minute.

But employers aren’t totally irrational, many do recognize how vital free time is for workers to organize, as David Harvey observes: “[A]llowing free time for more and more individuals to pursue their own objectives of self-realization is terrifying for the prospects for capital’s secure control over labor” (Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism, p. 274). It is important to think, as socialists, how much more we could do for our movement if we had 20 extra hours a week or more. How much more organizing could fast-food workers do if they knew their schedules two weeks in advance and could coordinate shift walkouts with significant notice? We are usually so overworked, or constantly worrying about when we will work next, that we really have very little time to fight back or even to enjoy ourselves.

It seems to me that fighting for a shorter workweek presents a fundamental challenge to the structure of work in a way that a demand for higher-wages (alone) does not. While higher wages are often the primary demand of low-wage workers and Keynesian economists identify the need to generate greater demand, a higher-wage platform decoupled from a demand for greater freedom at work and from work unavoidably contributes to ever-more alienated and mindless consumption while ultimately leading to the reproduction of capitalism and the requisite social logic. However, demands that shatter the illusion of scarcity (in this case scarcity of time) and contribute to a rethinking of human social life by revaluing the time not spent working are, I think, key to engendering an anti-hegemonic common sense.

Capitalists have always had an interest in controlling the free movement and time of workers and citizens; they have developed elaborate schemes for maximizing worker efficiency and limiting the little downtime many have at work. Today, they are succeeding at making us work at home and forcing us to accept an ever-changing work schedule as normal and even desirable. Despite the rhetoric of 'inevitable improvements' to our working lives through the gifts of beneficent technocrats, we know that the only way workers have ever won significant gains is through organizing and disruption.

We should not only demand a drastically shorter workweek and higher wages but also regulation to end “flexibility” and our “freedom” to never stop working, in order to develop a way of really enjoying and exercising what little time we have to ourselves away from the oppressive and anti-democratic organizations (also known as workplaces) within which we spend much of our lives. Further, such demands cut across workplaces and industries and are widely appealing. They also succeed in genuinely challenging the social power of capital. And, if such efforts are successful they leave many of us free to organize and demand even more.

Dustin Guastella is a member of Philadelpia DSA.

Individually signed posts do not necessarily reflect the views of DSA as an organization or its leadership. Democratic Left blog post submission guidelines can be found here.

[muyuu]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chinas-factories-are-building-a-robot-nation-2015-03-08

BEIJING (Caixin Online) — Every day, two quality-control supervisors monitor four robots tirelessly assembling remote-control devices for home appliances at a Midea Group 000333, -0.37%  factory in Foshan, in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong.

The robots recently replaced 14 workers on the plant’s assembly line for remote controls. And soon, according to Midea’s home-air-conditioner division deputy general manager Wu Shoubao, more robots will arrive to replace the quality-control supervisors.

Midea, a major appliance maker, is in the forefront of a full-blown charge by China’s manufacturing sector into robot-powered factory automation. Companies nationwide over the past five years have ramped up robotics in the face of labor woes, such as worker shortages and rising wages, and to cut their production costs. In the process, they’ve helped build a new market for Chinese robot manufacturers that are competing against multinational rivals.

Labor shortages are partly linked to what Wu says are changing attitudes among young workers. Young adults historically formed the backbone of the country’s assembly-line workforce, but he said many born between 1990 and 1999 now shun manufacturing jobs for other pursuits.

The working-age population — defined as those between ages 16 and 59 — is slowly declining. The National Bureau of Statistics said this age group’s population fell by 371,000 in 2013 to about 915 million last year.

Moreover, companies looking for inexpensive labor in Asia are no longer focusing on basing plants in China alone, as labor costs in many other countries are far lower. The International Labor Organization says an average worker’s monthly wage is the equivalent of 911 yuan ($145) in Vietnam and 603 yuan ($96) in Cambodia, for example, but 3,483 yuan ($555) in China.

Midea’s automation push got under way in 2011, just as Guangdong-area manufacturers were starting to grapple with labor dilemmas including worker shortages and high turnover. The company imposed a hiring freeze and then implemented a policy requiring that divisions with high turnover install automated systems.

The transformation is continuing today at Midea. Its residential air-conditioner division, for example, plans to cut 6,000 of its 30,000 workers by the end of 2015, and another 4,000 by 2018.

Midea invested 800 million yuan between 2011 and last year to install automated systems with some 800 robots. It plans to spend up to 900 million yuan to add another 600 robots this year.

Not only are robots helping Midea resolve labor issues, Wu said, but they’re also improving production and product quality.

Growing demand
The International Federation of Robotics (IFR), which represents robot manufacturers and research institutes, said China last year surpassed Japan to become the world’s biggest market for industrial robots. Some 200,000 were operating in China at the end of 2014, the IFR said, with 32,000 installed in 2013 alone, accounting for 20% of worldwide installations that year.

The robot-to-worker ratio in the country is still relatively low, the IFR said, with 30 robots working in manufacturing plants per 10,000 employees. Japan’s ratio is 11 times higher.

Four multinational companies — Switzerland’s ABB Group ABBN, -0.38%  , Japan’s Fanuc Corp. 6954, -0.11% FANUF, +0.35%  and Yaskawa Electric Corp. 6506, -1.27%  , and Germany’s Kuka Robotics KU2, +0.56%   — are the dominant suppliers of robotic systems for factories in China. Mir Industry, a Chinese industrial consultancy, said the four account for about 58% of the nationwide market.

Zhang Hui, general manager of the ABB Small Parts Assembly Center in China, which services robot clients, said his company spent years focusing on the world’s developed countries but now works to win clients in emerging markets with total-solution packages.

“In emerging markets such as China, we provide our clients with more solutions than products,” Zhang said.

Meanwhile, domestic robot makers are vying for a bigger piece of the action. One up-and-coming company is Foshan Xinpeng Robotics Technology Co., most of whose clients are bathroom-tile and ceramics manufacturers.

Qin Lei, who founded Xinpeng with 60 workers in 2013, said his company’s robots perform ceramic-glazing tasks that pose a health hazard to human workers. Xinpeng reported 30 million yuan in revenues last year on sales of some 100 robots.

Domestic robot manufacturers and systems integrators advertise themselves as better than multinationals for the China market, in part because of their expertise in assembly-line processes, particularly for computer, telecommunication and consumer-electronics manufacturing, said Deng Qiuwei, general manager at Shenzhen-based Rapoo Robotics Applications Co.

Deng said his company built a robot system for a client’s remote-control-device assembly line with the goal of integrating the entire process, not just for replacing workers. “We actually used the robots as a platform for realigning the production line,” he said.

Manufacturers have benefited from growing competition between Chinese and multinational robot companies. Qin said Chinese robot-makers since around 2010 have been offering budget-priced machines that forced global manufacturers to drastically cut prices. ABB, for example, last year slashed the price of a robot model similar to one made by Xinpeng to 200,000 yuan from 500,000 yuan, he said.

A private-equity manager who asked not to be identified said he decided to invest in robot manufacturers after touring recently automated electronics plants in the eastern province of Jiangsu and Zhejiang. He found robots there were being used not only for dangerous jobs and simple tasks, but also to handle complicated chores that otherwise require workers with special skills.

“At first, robots replaced workers who had jobs that exposed them to pollution, such as painting, or required that they repeat the same task,” the equity manager said. “But gradually, robots have been used for trades requiring skilled workers, such as welders, because they are cost-effective.”

Yet some companies have automated their factories simply because they cannot find enough people. A mid-level manager at an electronic manufacturer said that many businesses that are unable to fill positions have had no choice but to install robots.

“Workers quit every day,” he said. “Physically challenging jobs under harsh conditions or jobs requiring repetitive processes are much less attractive to young workers than the older generation.”

Zhang Fan, who oversees automation at a Midea factory in Wuhu, in the eastern province of Anhui, said the plant installed one robot in 2011 and another in 2012 to rapidly move 70 kilogram (154 pound) air-conditioners on an assembly line — a job that was too strenuous for people.

Cost constraints
The electronics manufacturer Foxconn Technology Group 2038, +1.50% FXCNF, +11.56%  has been among the most aggressive promoters of automation in the country. Playing into the push to replace workers with robots were accusations that its factories abused workers, reportedly leading to suicides.

But the company failed to meet a 2011 goal set by founder Terry Guo, who predicted that by 2014 Foxconn would install 1 million robots at its plants in China. Foxconn’s Automation and Robotics division chief, Dai Jiapeng, said that just over 10,000 robots have been installed on Foxconn assembly lines. He also said automation rates at Foxconn plants vary from 40% to 70%.

Guo’s goal was apparently too ambitious. For example, Dai said, the company found automation ineffective for assembly lines on which people work better than robots. One Foxconn engineer who preferred not to be named said most Apple Inc. AAPL, -0.04%  electronic products are still assembled by people because mechanical devices can scratch the products’ alloy cases, but fingers do not.

ABB’s Zhang said he’s recommending Chinese manufacturers look carefully at robots, but take care not to automate their factories more than necessary. Robots are best suited for overcoming labor issues and cutting costs. Ultimately, he said, a unit should improve productivity.

In some cases, hiking wages is more cost-effective than replacing workers with robots, Zhang said. Indeed, he said, ABB’s business in China has been slower than previously expected because many companies have found robots are still more expensive than laborers.

It’s a different story in Japan, where years ago a shift to robotic manufacturing started with companies seeking to escape high labor costs. Rapoo’s Deng noted labor costs in Japan are five times China’s.

A Japanese company “could afford to use two robots to replace one worker,” Deng said. “But in China, it’s only worth considering when one robot can replace three workers.”

That said, a lot of Chinese companies, including Midea, have already decided to push ahead with automation and grow their robot populations.

“If it’s a task that a robot can do, we’ll have one do it,” he said. “That’s our strategy.”

Rewritten by Li Rongde

[muyuu]

http://www.cuartopoder.es/elolordeldinero/42-millones-de-trabajadores-espanoles-cobran-menos-de-900-euros-al-mes/7269

INFORME DE CCOO / EL 20% TIENE SALARIOS POR DEBAJO DEL UMBRAL DE LA POBREZA

4,2 millones de trabajadores españoles cobran menos de 900 euros al mes

Algunas veces los datos hacen innecesaria la retórica. Atención: en España hay 1,4 millones de trabajadores por cuenta ajena que tienen una retribución anual de menos de 5.000 euros que, distribuidos en doce nóminas mensuales y dos pagas extras (el formato más habitual en nuestro país), equivale a una nómina mensual de 355 euros brutos…

¿Sorprendido? Sigamos: los 1,4 millones de personas asalariadas que están en el segundo tramo de ingresos más bajos tiene de salario medio bruto 696 euros.

Detengámonos un momento. Resulta que la suma de los dos colectivos de asalariados más desfavorecidos agrupa a 2,8 millones de personas, el 20% del total, cantidad que delimita la primera definición de la pobreza laboral. Esto es, 1 de cada 5 personas que trabaja por cuenta ajena en España cobra menos de 700 euros brutos en 14 pagas.

Podemos seguir sumando: 4,2 millones de asalariados, el 30% del total, tienen una nómina mensual que no alcanza los 950 euros brutos. “En realidad, en términos netos -dice el Informe sobre Pobreza y Desigualdad Salarial que ha elaborado CCOO-, el salario es bastante menor, porque aunque en la mayoría de los casos estos ingresos no tributan en el IRPF, sí que cotizan a la Seguridad Social, de forma que el salario recibido directamente por 4.242.780 personas no supera los 900 euros netos mensuales”.

El informe de CCOO contextualiza estas bochornosas cifras: “La pérdida salarial de los que menos ganan multiplica por seis veces la de los que más ganan. Las 1.414.260 personas asalariadas que están en el úl­timo tramo salarial no solo son pobres, sino que cada vez son más pobres porque en tres años han perdido casi uno de cada cuatro euros de su salario real”. Interesante.

La incontestable realidad de que la crisis ha hecho a los ricos mucho más ricos y a los pobres mucho más pobre queda demostrada con el siguiente dato: el salario de los que menos cobran sigue cayendo hasta si­tuarse en 414 euros, mientras que el nivel más alto sigue creciendo hasta llegar a 4.575: la proporción es ahora de 11 a 1.

Y aquí van las conclusiones del estudio:

Trabajar con jornada parcial es el factor determinante para estar en el grupo de los salarios más bajos.
Hay el triple de mujeres que hombres en el tramo de los salarios más bajos.
Aunque los jóvenes se llevan la peor parte, hay personas de todas las eda­des en la escala inferior de los salarios.
Españoles y extranjeros sufren la pobreza salarial.
Los bajos salarios no son cosa solo de los contratados temporales.
Los nuevos son los que cobran menos, pero los bajos salarios afectan tam­bién a la gente con antigüedad.
Los servicios de bajo valor añadido concentran los bajos salarios.
Cuanto más pequeña es la empresa, más trabajadores y trabajadoras con bajos salarios hay.
Los salarios más bajos están casi todos en el sector privado.
Esto es lo que hay. ¿Pero qué es lo que nos espera? ¿Qué podemos esperar de toda esta ‘mierda’? Poca cosa, amigo. La patronal, en su último informe de situación, nos trasmuta a una arcadia económica vallada con concertinas para los asalariados como, por ejemplo, tú. Las previsiones de CEOE son estas:
•  CEOE revisa al alza sus estimaciones del PIB para la economía española, con un aumento del 2, 8 % en 2015 mientras que en 2016 el crecimiento podría moderarse levemente . En consecuencia, España crecerá más que la media de la Eurozona, ampliando este diferencial positivo en este periodo .

• La demanda interna adquiere un mayor protagonismo en la senda de recuperación, y el sector exterior reduce su aportación negativa al PIB en 2015 y en 2016 podría incluso aportar crecimiento.”

• Todos los componentes del PIB registrarán tasas de crecimiento positivo en 2015,siendo los más dinámicos la inversión de bienes de equipo y las importaciones. El consumo privado alcanzará crecimientos del 3 % en 2015 al igual que la inversión en construcción .

• Este escenario influirá positivamente en el mercado laboral . Entre 2015 y 2016, la creación de empleo podría ser cercana a un millón de personas. En 2015, el aumento de los ocupados se situará en el entorno de los 475 mil y 445 mil en 2016 .

• Los mínimos históricos de inflación podrían continuar . En 2015, la inflación en media podría ser de nuevo negativa ( – 0 ,3 %) y en 2016 se anticipa un repunte hasta el 1,4 %, siempre y cuando se produzca una recuperación gradual del precio del petróleo y no haya aumentos de impuestos.

• Como consecuencia del dinamismo de la economía mundial , la economía española podría recuperar su capacidad de financiación en 2015 y 2016 , aunque de manera muy modesta.

• Con estas tasas de crecimiento de la economía española, los objetivos del déficit público son factibles.

“¡Albricias, ya está aquí lo bueno! ¡Lo peor ha pasado! ¡Vamos a crecer y vamos a ganar una pasta, compañero! ¡Ya lo verás!”…No parecería mal un final así para este bochornoso culebrón de miseria y de falta de respeto a cualquier tipo de moral, incluso a la cristiana, a la que suelen estar abonados nuestros próceres empresariales, que no han compartido ni un pez ni un trozo de pan en su vida . Pero ni a esas. La patronal no está dispuesta a aflojar ni un milímetro en su vergonzante asfixia y propone a los sindicatos, para firmar un nuevo pacto salarial, que la mejor forma de compartir la buena coyuntura que se avecina es que las zarandeadas nóminas crezcan un 0,9% “o un poquito más” (literal) para 2015 y hasta el 1,3% en 2016, porque la economía española “no está en efervescencia” ni “para grandes fiestas”, según palabras del ‘amigo’ Juan Rosell.

La avaricia y la indecencia patrocinando la desvergüenza desde la colina de los ventajistas. Las Marchas de la Dignidad claman con todos los argumentos a favor por una huelga general para poner freno a este desatino, pero, siendo sinceros, las huelgas hace tiempo que no funcionan… ¿Podría ser indefinida?… ¿Cuántos la secundarían?… ¿Durante cuánto tiempo?

La modesta opinión del que suscribe es que la única solución es política: vencer a la usura políticamente en las urnas y restablecer los derechos y el equilibrio entre las partes. Eso o la revolución… o la melancolía…

[lectorhinfluyente1984]

Is Jobless Growth Inevitable?

ABU DHABI – Ever since the industrial revolution, humans have been ambivalent about technological progress. While new technology has been a major source of liberation, progress, and prosperity, it has also fueled plenty of agony – not least owing to the fear that it will render labor redundant.

So far, experience has seemed to discredit this fear. Indeed, by boosting productivity and underpinning the emergence of new industries, technological progress has historically fueled economic growth and net job creation. New innovations accelerated – rather than disrupted – this positive cycle.

But some are claiming that the cycle is now broken, especially in technologically savvy countries like the United States. Indeed, machines are becoming smarter, with innovations like advanced robotics, 3D printing, and big data analytics enabling companies to save money by eliminating even highly skilled workers. As a result of this “productivity paradox” (sometimes called the “great decoupling”), jobless growth is here to stay. We can no longer take human prosperity for granted, however rosy the aggregate indicators for profitability and GDP growth may be.

But are we really in the throes of a Frankenstein’s dilemma, in which our own creations come back to haunt us? Or can we beat the productivity paradox by harnessing the power of machines to support development in ways that benefit more than the bottom line?

There is good reason to be optimistic. Many countries – even technologically savvy ones – can still benefit from the self-reinforcing cycle of technological advancement, rising productivity, and employment growth. Luxembourg, Norway, and the Netherlands – three innovative and capital-intensive economies that regularly appear in the upper quartile of productivity per hour and employment, according to OECD data from 2001-2013 – are prime examples.

Cynics will suspect that Luxembourg and Norway have managed to sustain this dynamic only because of their peculiar economic structures (a concentration in finance in the former, and in natural resources in the latter). So let’s consider the Netherlands, which stands out as the only country that recently has appeared in the upper quartile not only in productivity and employment, but also in labor-market participation.

The Netherlands has been a champion of innovation, gaining a fifth-place ranking in the recent INSEAD Global Innovation Index. A striking 85% of large Dutch firms report innovative activities, while more than 50% of all firms are “innovation active.” Dutch firms are also world patent leaders; Eindhoven, the hometown of the electronics company Philips, is the world’s most patent-intensive city.

So what is the Dutch secret for ensuring that technological progress benefits all?

The Netherlands seems to be undergoing a sort of industrial revolution in reverse, with jobs moving from factories to homes. The Dutch labor market has the highest concentration of part-time and freelance workers in Europe, with nearly 50% of all Dutch workers, and 62% of young workers, engaged in part-time employment – a luxury afforded to them by the country’s relatively high hourly wages.

Many young Dutch work part-time as schoolteachers. But a more lucrative – and common – source of part-time employment in the Netherlands is the subcontracting of “white collar” services. Highly skilled or specialized workers sell their services to a wide range of businesses, supplementing the work of machines with human value-added activity.

Another key to the Netherlands’ success is entrepreneurship. In 1990-2010, self-employment rates fell across the OECD countries, with business ownership in the US, for example, having declined rapidly since 2002. In the Netherlands, however, business ownership has grown steadily since 1992, reaching 12% of the labor force in 2012. Almost 70% of Dutch business owners were exclusively self-employed in 2008.

To be sure, rates of business ownership and self-employment are also high in low-income countries like Mexico. But the Netherlands is much wealthier, and boasts high levels of per-hour productivity, employment, and participation – largely owing to its flexible and adaptive labor market.

In short, the Netherlands has restructured its economic value chain to accommodate a new division of labor between humans and machines, embracing new kinds of economic activity – especially part-time work and solo entrepreneurship – to balance human needs with technological advances. In doing so, it has highlighted the importance of “enterprising skills” – including creativity, entrepreneurship, leadership, self-management, and communications – in enabling humans to keep pace with technology.

Machines may be reaching new heights of intelligence, but they are no match for human resourcefulness, imagination, and interaction. This is a lesson that countries would do well to learn from the Dutch.

[muyuu]

http://tbo.com/news/business/mcdonalds-testing-kiosks-at-wesley-chapel-restaurant-20150325/?page=1

[Currobena]

http://tbo.com/news/business/mcdonalds-testing-kiosks-at-wesley-chapel-restaurant-20150325/?page=1

Al menos estamos avanzados en algo: ya se emplea desde hace algún tiempo en Macdonalds de Madrid.

[muyuu]

http://tbo.com/news/business/mcdonalds-testing-kiosks-at-wesley-chapel-restaurant-20150325/?page=1

Al menos estamos avanzados en algo: ya se emplea desde hace algún tiempo en Macdonalds de Madrid.

Yo he visto varios en Inglaterra. Había uno cerca del curro que han cerrado y el que han abierto cerca en su lugar, ya viene con kiosko y apenas tiene 4-5 empleados con el securata incluído (eran bastantes más antes).

[muyuu]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/30/probation-officers-face-redundancy-in-plan-to-replace-them-with-machines

[muyuu]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/farmer-herds-sheep-with-a-drone-in-latest-sign-of-robots-taking-over-1.3015287

Ni los perros pastores se escapan 

[Mad Men]

Conocéis los robots de Boston Dynamics??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrjrgBV8K0


A que acojonan un poco?

[muyuu]

Conocéis los robots de Boston Dynamics??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrjrgBV8K0


A que acojonan un poco?

Son bastante famosos, y pertenecen a Google. En principio eran para experimentación militar pero a futuro veremos.

[Mad Men]

Conocéis los robots de Boston Dynamics??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8YjvHYbZ9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFrjrgBV8K0


A que acojonan un poco?

Son bastante famosos, y pertenecen a Google. En principio eran para experimentación militar pero a futuro veremos.

Exacto, y esa es la virtud de esas empresas, que arriesgan e invierten en sectores innovadores, con alto riesgo de fracaso. Lo hacen porque es su leitmotiv y porque tienen pasta de sobra. Así nacieron y así morirán.

Creo que muchos pinitos que están haciendo ahora se verán en unos cuantos años, y las cosas pintan interesantes, coche autónomo, realidad virtual, híperconexión, robotización, biotecnología, nanotecnología y un largo etcétera más, pues con esos, no sabes por donde irán los tiros.

Por conocidos, se que es espectacular trabajar en estas empresas, tendrían que aprender un poco las empresas patrias, verían que el rollo de patrono ya no se lleva, y se darían cuenta de que son poco productivos, y ya ni hablemos del valor añadido. El brazo de carne y hueso cada vez valdrá menos, llegará un punto que todo lo manual se considerará artesanía.