Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 https://www.wired.com/2016/07/tesla-gigafactory-elon-musk#slide-1 I, for one, am hoping he's successful.
Chef Jim Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I would love to know the carbon footprint of that plant and it's supply chain as well as the life expectancy of the batteries and what damage they do to the environment when disposed of.
Azalin Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 https://www.wired.com/2016/07/tesla-gigafactory-elon-musk#slide-1 I, for one, am hoping he's successful. That looks great to me. I've never understood criticism of Musk's endeavors - I'd like to see more like him.
Observer Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 That looks great to me. I've never understood criticism of Musk's endeavors - I'd like to see more like him. Dream big. Shoot for the stars. We definitely need more people like him. He will fail spectacularly in some of these things but we definitely need more Musks and less Wall Street money moguls. Even the people dancing a jig at the Tesla's problems miss the point. He's turned the auto industry, which seemed all but impenetrable to an outsider, on its ear.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 2, 2016 Author Posted August 2, 2016 Dream big. Shoot for the stars. We definitely need more people like him. He will fail spectacularly in some of these things but we definitely need more Musks and less Wall Street money moguls. Even the people dancing a jig at the Tesla's problems miss the point. He's turned the auto industry, which seemed all but impenetrable to an outsider, on its ear. In my opinion that's the number one problem our country faces. We've turned from an innovative manufacturing economy into an intellectually stagnated financial-services economy. If not rectified, it's going to be the end of us. Because let's face it...most people can't be bankers.
4merper4mer Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I would love to know the carbon footprint of that plant and it's supply chain as well as the life expectancy of the batteries and what damage they do to the environment when disposed of. You will not be allowed to know that. Just trust them, it's GREEN.
GG Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 That looks great to me. I've never understood criticism of Musk's endeavors - I'd like to see more like him. Very few people criticize his products or dreams. The questions come from doubts about his forecasts. In my opinion that's the number one problem our country faces. We've turned from an innovative manufacturing economy into an intellectually stagnated financial-services economy. If not rectified, it's going to be the end of us. Because let's face it...most people can't be bankers. Did you miss the line where a 6 million sf factory will be staffed by only 5,100 employees? That's about the number of employees that work in a standard 1 million sf office tower in NYC. Guess which industry still employs people (for now)?
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I would love to know the carbon footprint of that plant and it's supply chain as well as the life expectancy of the batteries and what damage they do to the environment when disposed of. The carbon footprint's probably pretty small. The environmental footprint is frickin' massive.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 2, 2016 Author Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) Did you miss the line where a 6 million sf factory will be staffed by only 5,100 employees? That's about the number of employees that work in a standard 1 million sf office tower in NYC. Guess which industry still employs people (for now)? I think you'll agree that the requirements for said jobs are going to be quite different. Edit: also, that's my point. If you take a look at the balance between manufacturing and financial services in the USA both in 1960 and today, you'll see the problem. What happens to our economy the next time some banker who thinks he's smarter than he is invents some instrument that brings the banks to their knees? Bad news. Edited August 2, 2016 by joesixpack
GG Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 I think you'll agree that the requirements for said jobs are going to be quite different. Edit: also, that's my point. If you take a look at the balance between manufacturing and financial services in the USA both in 1960 and today, you'll see the problem. What happens to our economy the next time some banker who thinks he's smarter than he is invents some instrument that brings the banks to their knees? Bad news. That's not the issue. People want manufacturing to come back. But if and when it comes back (part of it is onshoring back), the high value manufacturing will be done by robots. The first national leader who will admit the basic truth about the future will get my full support.
Azalin Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 (edited) That's not the issue. People want manufacturing to come back. But if and when it comes back (part of it is onshoring back), the high value manufacturing will be done by robots. The first national leader who will admit the basic truth about the future will get my full support. You're right, and what's more is that with robotic assembly lines you have a need for higher skilled employees. Instead of low-skilled people working the line, you now need programmers, engineers, and maintenance technicians. In addition, robots consistently perform one complete function (on average) approximately every 60 seconds with no breaks, and are able to perform tasks that are potentially dangerous, if not lethal, to humans. Way too many people buy into the "robots are putting people out of work" BS - all that's really happening is they're creating a demand for higher skilled (and higher paid) labor while helping to reduce on-the-job injuries. It's a win-win. Edited August 2, 2016 by Azalin
DC Tom Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 You're right, and what's more is that with robotic assembly lines you have a need for higher skilled employees. Instead of low-skilled people working the line, you now need programmers, engineers, and maintenance technicians. In addition, robots consistently perform one complete function (on average) approximately every 60 seconds with no breaks, and are able to perform tasks that are potentially dangerous, if not lethal, to humans. And you don't have to give them benefits. Theoretically, a robot can work 8760 hours a year (probably closer to 7500, with regular maintenance and breakdowns). Naively, a $100k robot, with $30k maintenance costs annually, can replace about three unskilled workers making $30k a year. Probably more.
Nanker Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 Every time I watch "How It's Made" I realize that all manufacturing is done in Kanuckistan.
Observer Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 You're right, and what's more is that with robotic assembly lines you have a need for higher skilled employees. Instead of low-skilled people working the line, you now need programmers, engineers, and maintenance technicians. In addition, robots consistently perform one complete function (on average) approximately every 60 seconds with no breaks, and are able to perform tasks that are potentially dangerous, if not lethal, to humans. Way too many people buy into the "robots are putting people out of work" BS - all that's really happening is they're creating a demand for higher skilled (and higher paid) labor while helping to reduce on-the-job injuries. It's a win-win. Plenty of fogies on this board rooting for John Henry.
4merper4mer Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 You're right, and what's more is that with robotic assembly lines you have a need for higher skilled employees. Instead of low-skilled people working the line, you now need programmers, engineers, and maintenance technicians. In addition, robots consistently perform one complete function (on average) approximately every 60 seconds with no breaks, and are able to perform tasks that are potentially dangerous, if not lethal, to humans. Way too many people buy into the "robots are putting people out of work" BS - all that's really happening is they're creating a demand for higher skilled (and higher paid) labor while helping to reduce on-the-job injuries. It's a win-win. John Henry thinks you're an a-hole. Plenty of fogies on this board rooting for John Henry. I basically posted that at the same time as you which probably ruins your day knowing that we think alike.
Nanker Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 John Henry thinks you're an a-hole. John Henry was a steel-drivin' man, I'll have you know.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 2, 2016 Author Posted August 2, 2016 John Henry was a steel-drivin' man, I'll have you know. you people hijack more threads than Al-Quaeda did planes
GG Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 You're right, and what's more is that with robotic assembly lines you have a need for higher skilled employees. Instead of low-skilled people working the line, you now need programmers, engineers, and maintenance technicians. In addition, robots consistently perform one complete function (on average) approximately every 60 seconds with no breaks, and are able to perform tasks that are potentially dangerous, if not lethal, to humans. Way too many people buy into the "robots are putting people out of work" BS - all that's really happening is they're creating a demand for higher skilled (and higher paid) labor while helping to reduce on-the-job injuries. It's a win-win. That's what Musk is doing well too. He has almost as many programmers/engineers in the Fremont facility as he has assembly line workers.
....lybob Posted August 2, 2016 Posted August 2, 2016 You're right, and what's more is that with robotic assembly lines you have a need for higher skilled employees. Instead of low-skilled people working the line, you now need programmers, engineers, and maintenance technicians. In addition, robots consistently perform one complete function (on average) approximately every 60 seconds with no breaks, and are able to perform tasks that are potentially dangerous, if not lethal, to humans. Way too many people buy into the "robots are putting people out of work" BS - all that's really happening is they're creating a demand for higher skilled (and higher paid) labor while helping to reduce on-the-job injuries. It's a win-win. The machinery need to replace 100 workers probably needs 4-5 workers to maintain and program - why would you replace labor with machines if you need as much labor to maintain the machines
Recommended Posts