It was always a dream of mine to have a little company that designed small gadgets, party favor type toys, doodads and so on. The problem comes down to tooling. It would be much more fun to just send off a cad file to some place and set up a contract with some logistics company, and bam! New product.
A similar idea, and its ramifications, is the central theme of Cory Doctrow's newest work: Makers.
From the article:"When you lower the barrier for people to prototype, and for people to become part of the manufacturing and design process, you go from tens or hundreds of people to tens of thousands of people who can take part" A way to further decentralize manufacturing and encourage cheap prototyping would be to embrace 3d printer technology advances and reductions in cost.
I'm consistently surprised that people are still arguing against progress in favor of jobs protectionism. It's never worked. All we accomplished through the 80s was propping up our unhealthy Steel and Auto industries and compounding the pain.
If we aren't ready for the design-centric, automated-manufacturing future, then not only will the linesmen be out of jobs but the designers, engineers and roboticists that we didn't train and lay the ground work for, will be out of jobs.
1. Designers, engineers, and roboticists aren't usually the types taking manufacturing jobs except to find ways to improve the process.
2. Many and dare I say most people in manufacturing are people without the inclination or talen to be designers, engineers, and roboticists. The more we automate, the more we will struggle to find productive roles for these people.
3. That said, it's still cheaper to stick a third world body on a project than a robot, and until we've raised the world's standard of living this is going to continue.
Your point #3 is incorrect if in a lot of situations, especially ones in which transportation and time play a factor -- for on demand production with minimal inventories.
And second, he was saying by not automating and improving we would never have the jobs (develop the talent and abilitiy) to have the roboticists when we need them.
Tax rates and government interventionism are major forces driving business overseas. A government "five year plan" to "refactor" the manufacturing industry is the poison not the medicine.
Nope, labor costs are the major forces. As long as somebody sells the stuff in america they will probably pay very similar taxes based on profit regardless of where they made it. They will probably pay more taxes if they outsource actually because that would bring them more profit.
Labor costs are lower in much of Asia, but it's not that simple. Shipping costs, risks to IP, loss of flexibility and accessibility to the manufacturing operation all factor into the picture. There are plenty of examples of manufacturing operations returning to the US for these reasons. Germany is a higher cost labor market than the US yet you don't see much of this simplistic scenario where physical operations inevitably flee high wages.
The big issue driving away these operations on net is the regulatory nightmare of employing Americans and running a plant. You have OSHA, the EPA, and an ever growing body of employer mandates to contend with. Also, the US is now a high tax country from a business perspective.
which is tax money and they tax the society enormously , e.g. sales tax alone 19%.
DARPA called in the past for some great technical innovations, but this one bringing manufacturing back to US is questionable. Not that I don’t like to see it, but it is an open worldwide market and may the best business model win.
I see this initiate more a reaction from the government, because they are scared loosing the access to the companies who run the semi fab process.
Is this really any of DARPA's business? Aren't they supposed to be a defence research agency? When did they start feeling responsible for the US manufacturing economy. And why do they think they have the sufficient knowledge and ability to reform the US economy?
I mean if those manufacturing methods were more efficient, then wouldn't the economy change by itself then?
This seems better suited for the Department of Commerce or a public-private consortium. As much as I respect DARPA, they seem to have lost too much focus on their core mission over the past ten years or so. An exception is Urban Challenge.
GTFO my ARPAnet, then. Seriously, DARPA has always invested blue-sky technology with the aim of securing a long-term strategic advantage for the US.
Just think of the impact (ie cost savings) that a general-purpose manufacturing infrastructure could have for defense procurement, never mind the wider world of business. I see significant strategic value in this, and think DARPA has more than justified its existence as an incubator for new technology rather than being a subsidy dump.
I think that the future for check points on roads is that the soldiers stay safe in the blockhouse remotely controlling androids that look in the trunk of the car. Urban warfare will undergo a similar transformation. The soldiers stay in the armoured car operating the remote controls. The android kicks in the door, goes into the house and is blown to pieces by the booby trap.
In this scenario America is no longer constrained by human casualties but is instead constrained by the manufacturing capacity to make up loses of robot warriors.
15 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 37.9 ms ] threadA similar idea, and its ramifications, is the central theme of Cory Doctrow's newest work: Makers.
If we aren't ready for the design-centric, automated-manufacturing future, then not only will the linesmen be out of jobs but the designers, engineers and roboticists that we didn't train and lay the ground work for, will be out of jobs.
2. Many and dare I say most people in manufacturing are people without the inclination or talen to be designers, engineers, and roboticists. The more we automate, the more we will struggle to find productive roles for these people.
3. That said, it's still cheaper to stick a third world body on a project than a robot, and until we've raised the world's standard of living this is going to continue.
And second, he was saying by not automating and improving we would never have the jobs (develop the talent and abilitiy) to have the roboticists when we need them.
The big issue driving away these operations on net is the regulatory nightmare of employing Americans and running a plant. You have OSHA, the EPA, and an ever growing body of employer mandates to contend with. Also, the US is now a high tax country from a business perspective.
I mean if those manufacturing methods were more efficient, then wouldn't the economy change by itself then?
In war, it probably helps a country to be able to produce a lot of guns, tanks, ships, etc.
Just think of the impact (ie cost savings) that a general-purpose manufacturing infrastructure could have for defense procurement, never mind the wider world of business. I see significant strategic value in this, and think DARPA has more than justified its existence as an incubator for new technology rather than being a subsidy dump.
In this scenario America is no longer constrained by human casualties but is instead constrained by the manufacturing capacity to make up loses of robot warriors.