New T-Shirt Sewing Robot Can Make as Many Shirts per Hour as 17 Factory Workers

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
SoftWear Automation has introduced LOWRY, a sewing robot (sewbot) that is advanced enough to make whole t-shirts and much of a pair of jeans. The company says that one of its robotic sewing lines can replace a conventional line of 10 workers and produce about 1,142 t-shirts in an eight-hour period, compared to just 669 for the human sewing line.

Understandably, the rise of automated sewing has raised concerns that it could displace countless low-wage garment workers in Asia in the coming decades. Last year, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated that around 64% of textile, clothing, and footwear workers in Indonesia could eventually be replaced by robots. In Vietnam the number was 86%, and in Cambodia, 88%. The report noted that workers could get better wages if governments and employers start preparing them for new high-tech jobs. If they don’t, the consequences could be dire.
 
You cant just "prepare them for new high-tech jobs".

You cant just "become" a programmer and get remote work.

A walmart greeter cant just be retrained to work in a high tech job.

Most of these people are farmer grade, odds are with a 80-85 IQ(so still represents 40% of the gen pop), and little to no formal education. At best they might have a highschool education.
 
We do not need 80% of human population on this earth. Now, can we get rid of them using automation...?
 
I enjoy using my 3d printers to make various gadgets and hobby accessories. I like the DIY nature of customizing and building your stuff. I also *hate* shopping for clothes. My clothes, with my wife, for my kids, whatever. Clothes shopping sucks. If they get a scaled-down version of this for home use (similar to the evolution of FDM printers from high-end industry prototypers to sub-$200 home systems), I would be all over it. Never having to wonder what, exactly, a "Large" size means for fit (or even worse, what toddler sizes actually mean)? Not having to wait in the store for my wife to look at stuff? I'm all in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _l_
like this
"Better they work as slaves in sweatshops in Asia, so I can feel good about protecting their jobs", is the new T-shirt I want these robots to produce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _l_
like this
nightanole said:
You cant just "prepare them for new high-tech jobs".

You cant just "become" a programmer and get remote work.

A walmart greeter cant just be retrained to work in a high tech job.

Most of these people are farmer grade, odds are with a 80-85 IQ(so still represents 40% of the gen pop), and little to no formal education. At best they might have a highschool education.
Click to expand...

Whats your point? That we should ban automation so people have a job? Thats bullshit right there.
 
nightanole said:
You cant just "prepare them for new high-tech jobs".

You cant just "become" a programmer and get remote work.

A walmart greeter cant just be retrained to work in a high tech job.

Most of these people are farmer grade, odds are with a 80-85 IQ(so still represents 40% of the gen pop), and little to no formal education. At best they might have a highschool education.
Click to expand...

And they are taking java bootcamps, and getting hired at places because they need warm bodies.


Shitty code is everywhere :(
 
kju1 said:
Whats your point? That we should ban automation so people have a job? Thats bullshit right there.
Click to expand...
1000% agree. The purpose of jobs is to pay people for a service. If the service is no longer necessary then it's not the buyer or the owner's responsibility to give a crap.
Displacement of low skilled workers and the consequences is the low skilled worker's responsibility.
 
kju1 said:
Whats your point? That we should ban automation so people have a job? Thats bullshit right there.
Click to expand...

Um i was referring to the solution of job loss...

I never said t shirt robots should be banned.

I said that the bullshit solution given to the worker, become high tech workers, was not feasible.
 
This kind of thing has been happening since the industrial revolution started (and likely before), has it not? I don't know what the displaced works will end up doing. Retool/retrain only partially works (as others have pointed out, it's very complicated and they can't all become Java developers). Maybe they can get a job with the Windows company. "Sir, your computer has a virus and I will help you fix it". Everyone knows the Indian accent by now, so maybe some different accents will open up new opportunities.
 
Re training people to do other work is always going to be a need. There's plenty of other jobs that can be filled. It's a matter of desire to find them and a willingness to learn. Going back to a vocational technical school to learn a new trade isn't a bad thing as much I believe education should be a very important and dire need in the world... well. As someone who called me today saying, "I don't know anything 'bout none education." So there's that.
 
Gigus Fire said:
1000% agree. The purpose of jobs is to pay people for a service. If the service is no longer necessary then it's not the buyer or the owner's responsibility to give a crap.
Displacement of low skilled workers and the consequences is the low skilled worker's responsibility.
Click to expand...

Let them eat cake worked well for the last populace that had that mentality. Although I guess with robot armies perhaps it will be easier to keep the several billion people displaced in line. Sounds like a great world to live in, though.

Serious question - is the only purpose of humanity to work in what we consider to be jobs? If robots have the ability to provide food, shelter and clothing for the entirety of humanity without human labor, should that not be provided to them?
 
And the cotton gin put a lot of slave dealers out of business, too.

Automation can be a bitch. It's more efficient and can cost less in the long run. Large initial investment, then maintenance. Sometimes it's worth it, other times it's not. It's not up to the companies to create jobs for those labor employees. They have no obligation to care for the people. Their obligation is to their company, not to society.

Times change. You have to change with them in order to keep up.
 
We will always need manual labor. For the foreseeable future, you can't automate landscaping, contracting / construction, good car-washing, fruit / vegetable picking among other things. Sure apparel is sourced primarily on a cost basis. I've seen factories move around the world and to different parts of Asia as the owners chase lower wages at factories, especially for textiles and apparel. The migration from SE Asia to China was a pretty big deal back in the day. Eventually everything (not time sensitive) is going to be moving production to Africa or wherever else that can offer the lower / lowest wages.

As for the people - it's never been a question of jobs - it's a question of hubris and ego. People refuse to take available jobs because they think they are too good / above the job. Keep in mind, I'm talking about unskilled labor here too, not skilled craftsmen or tradesmen.
 
Last edited:
TwistedAegis said:
Let them eat cake worked well for the last populace that had that mentality. Although I guess with robot armies perhaps it will be easier to keep the several billion people displaced in line. Sounds like a great world to live in, though.

Serious question - is the only purpose of humanity to work in what we consider to be jobs? If robots have the ability to provide food, shelter and clothing for the entirety of humanity without human labor, should that not be provided to them?
Click to expand...
I never suggested that the purchasers or owners were out of touch with the needs of the poor. It's almost kind of funny that people being freed from doing menial labor in order to exist is viewed as a negative thing, like they're all going to starve and die as a result of not having jobs in sweat shops.
Sure they'll be displaced for a time, but the smart ones will see the writing on the wall and move into different industries. The really smart ones will invest in automation and repair of such automation.
Maybe their governments will also see the writing on the wall and start pushing for higher education. The road to modernization is a tough one, but it's not as if all is doom and gloom like you're suggesting. I really think you're (and the article author) really underestimating the human condition which is to adapt and thrive in adverse changes.

No. Jobs are a means to an end, and that's to trade services and or time for an equivalent value to be able to purchase goods or services.
Lets say you automate enough so that all basic necessities are covered. Our current form of economic system probably wouldn't work. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, it just means that certain industries will go through some major changes and new industries will be created in their stead. I'm not suggesting a socialized form of economic system will take over, i'm merely suggesting that the costs will be lowered so that it ensures that everyone has basic necessities to live. Anyway you look at it, this should be a net positive for everyone.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Let them eat cake worked well for the last populace that had that mentality. Although I guess with robot armies perhaps it will be easier to keep the several billion people displaced in line. Sounds like a great world to live in, though.

Serious question - is the only purpose of humanity to work in what we consider to be jobs? If robots have the ability to provide food, shelter and clothing for the entirety of humanity without human labor, should that not be provided to them?
Click to expand...

No. Complacency is the result if you provide someone with everything. Idealized economies like Star Trek (which claimed to not have any money...but did..huh?) only work in cases where resources are not limited. There will always be limited resources and the distribution of limited resources should be determined by your efforts not by committee.

I view automation as freeing up humans to do more important tasks. Just because we have some people we dont feel we can retrain doesnt mean we shouldnt do it. I vehemently disagree that someone with a HS diploma is incapable of learning. Even with an IQ of 85, which came up earlier, people are trainable. Remember average is 90-110. There is a LOT you can do with that. Most things arent as difficult as people think they are...

dvsman said:
As for the people - it's never been a question of jobs - it's a question of hubris and ego. People refuse to take available jobs because they think they are too good / above the job. Keep in mind, we are talking about unskilled labor here too, not skilled craftsmen or tradesmen.
Click to expand...

This 1000x. I would take any job I had to in order to pay my bills...
 
Hi All

Question to all of you Automation proponents, What happens when ALL/MOST Jobs are automated? Who's going to be able to purchase the Products/Services that are being offered, if folk displaced by said automation don't have jobs
 
jtm55 said:
Hi All

Question to all of you Automation proponents, What happens when ALL/MOST Jobs are automated? Who's going to be able to purchase the Products/Services that are being offered, if folk displaced by said automation don't have jobs
Click to expand...
All jobs can't be automated. The arts should have a huge boost as it's almost impossible to automate that. Higher education jobs still will need people to innovate. Research jobs probably won't be touched.
You're talking about physical/menial labor jobs which will be affected the most, because in almost all cases (like this sowing machine) it takes 0 skill to do, just some repetitive motions that anyone could learn.

If all physical labor jobs were automated, then it would be great. Everyone could have a house or live in a construction because the cost would only be the materials. Food would be created by bots and delivered to a grocery store through automated transport. The costs would be the power. Thus the overall costs of the goods would be cheap.
Maybe a form of universal basic income would become necessary. Who knows.

You're assuming that automation won't be affordable to the masses, but i think it will.
 
jtm55 said:
Hi All

Question to all of you Automation proponents, What happens when ALL/MOST Jobs are automated? Who's going to be able to purchase the Products/Services that are being offered, if folk displaced by said automation don't have jobs
Click to expand...

That question is like asking "What will we do when everyone has flying cars?" That problem is very, very far away. The process will happen very gradually. According to the article it costs about $20 million for 21 of those robots on a factory. So it costs $1 million to replace 10 workers. In addition, all they can do is T-shirts. That is not very economical at this point compared to getting them done in Vietnam. Yes, they will get better, capable of more complex clothing, and cheaper and and then maybe in a decade they will start to slowly replace humans in a serious way. There will be things like hand bags, dresses, and other non standard things that need to be hand sewn for a long time to come. It will probably cost too much compared to humans to retool a machine for the designer hand bag of the season.
 
jtm55 said:
Hi All

Question to all of you Automation proponents, What happens when ALL/MOST Jobs are automated? Who's going to be able to purchase the Products/Services that are being offered, if folk displaced by said automation don't have jobs
Click to expand...

If almost all jobs are automated, then lots of people will not have much money, so those products must be very very cheap otherwise they wouldn't sell. So poor people will wash windows, tell stories, go shopping for or open doors for rich people and make enough to buy extremely cheap clothes and food. This will raise the standard of living for the ultra rich and middle class people (the repair technician class) directly. The poor will also have access to a wider variety of extremely cheap 'stuff.'
 
Ur_Mom said:
And the cotton gin put a lot of slave dealers out of business, too.

Automation can be a bitch. It's more efficient and can cost less in the long run. Large initial investment, then maintenance. Sometimes it's worth it, other times it's not. It's not up to the companies to create jobs for those labor employees. They have no obligation to care for the people. Their obligation is to their company, not to society.

Times change. You have to change with them in order to keep up.
Click to expand...

Good ole sociopathy. That my friends is what is going to kill capitalism
 
BreezeDM said:
That question is like asking "What will we do when everyone has flying cars?" That problem is very, very far away. The process will happen very gradually. According to the article it costs about $20 million for 21 of those robots on a factory. So it costs $1 million to replace 10 workers. In addition, all they can do is T-shirts. That is not very economical at this point compared to getting them done in Vietnam. Yes, they will get better, capable of more complex clothing, and cheaper and and then maybe in a decade they will start to slowly replace humans in a serious way. There will be things like hand bags, dresses, and other non standard things that need to be hand sewn for a long time to come. It will probably cost too much compared to humans to retool a machine for the designer hand bag of the season.
Click to expand...
But i might be wrong about this, but this kind of automation is fairly new. Someone will come up with a cheaper and better design over time.
 
dvsman said:
We will always need manual labor. For the foreseeable future, you can't automate landscaping, contracting / construction, good car-washing, fruit / vegetable picking among other things. Sure apparel is sourced primarily on a cost basis. I've seen factories move around the world and to different parts of Asia as the owners chase lower wages at factories, especially for textiles and apparel. The migration from SE Asia to China was a pretty big deal back in the day. Eventually everything (not time sensitive) is going to be moving production to Africa or wherever else that can offer the lower / lowest wages.

As for the people - it's never been a question of jobs - it's a question of hubris and ego. People refuse to take available jobs because they think they are too good / above the job. Keep in mind, I'm talking about unskilled labor here too, not skilled craftsmen or tradesmen.
Click to expand...
Tell me more about the world Mr America! Your random conjecture is so important!
 
I don't understand why some of you guys get so offended by statements of facts. If you were feet on the ground in some of these factories - which I have (so not conjecture) I'm not saying it's right or it's wrong to replace people with machines but if you were a businessman / CEO ... then you would do the same ... and you should. Business isn't a charity. Charity is charity.

As to the question of what will happen if robots replace people in factories and manual labor (assuming 100+ years from now), maybe there will be basic universal income at that time. Who knows? People will always vote in their own self-interest and policy will follow.

The thing to keep in mind is manual labor will not be alone in being displaced by technology in the future. If you do a little googling, there have already been talks about how Artificial Intelligence will replace 'skilled' jobs, including the practice of law.

Sure automation replacing human beings starts at the bottom, but no one's future will be entirely immune <- likely but conjecture.
 
Understandably, the rise of automated sewing has raised concerns that it could displace countless low-wage garment workers in Asia in the coming decades.
Click to expand...

Now, if only these apparel companies would put these machines stateside, it'd at least add a few jobs to our economy - sure Asia loses a ton of jobs, but we'd gain a few. But we both know they'll just place them in Asia factories.

Factories which will then expand and replace them with counterfeit machines made by Chinese companies. So the only thing the US economy nets is cheap goods and Wall Street gets the higher profit margins it's jonesing for.
 
Paladin21 said:
I enjoy using my 3d printers to make various gadgets and hobby accessories. I like the DIY nature of customizing and building your stuff. I also *hate* shopping for clothes. My clothes, with my wife, for my kids, whatever. Clothes shopping sucks. If they get a scaled-down version of this for home use (similar to the evolution of FDM printers from high-end industry prototypers to sub-$200 home systems), I would be all over it. Never having to wonder what, exactly, a "Large" size means for fit (or even worse, what toddler sizes actually mean)? Not having to wait in the store for my wife to look at stuff? I'm all in.
Click to expand...


Can you 3D print a "tile" that is a working QR Code and can be scanned by a phone? I want one I can attach to my keyring so it'll need a hole through it somewhere or a raised section on the back that a ring can go through ?

If so, then we can come to terms on payment if you desire.

P.S., it doesn't need to be this code, just one that you know works so you can test against it.


JhlUkFmf_qYUMEV_H-WPvG_TMB7oiSY8jqqRIkzJ_cZRe0eWYIx_x59NPMX-gMpUSRZN=w170
 
kju1 said:
Whats your point? That we should ban automation so people have a job? That's bullshit right there.
Click to expand...


Why?

What would be wrong with waiting to implement mass automation until we can adjust and figure out what we are going to do with our populations?

Or hey, we can just rush headlong into the Automated Industrial Revolution and let the chips land where they may. If one revolution is fun, several at the same time is a party I don't want to miss right?
 
Am I seriously the only person that didn't know most clothing wasn't already made by robots? You're saying my $10 T-Shirt was hand-stitched?
 
ZeqOBpf6 said:
Am I seriously the only person that didn't know most clothing wasn't already made by robots? You're saying my $10 T-Shirt was hand-stitched?
Click to expand...

You aren't the only one. When I first started in manufacturing I was amazed by how many operations were/are still manual. The reasoning was that many of the jobs were staffed by temps who're more flexible (ie. you can throw multiple small tasks at them in a given shift) and if you don't need them you don't call them in and save the expense. Automation is expensive and that upfront cost needs a quick payback to be viable to this day.
 
Until and unless there is a one world government, one country (say the USA) waiting to properly implement mass automation, isn't going to stop every other competitor country from implementing mass automation. And there goes your competitive advantage.

Once a technology is invented and released, it's a Pandora's box. No putting it back.

lcpiper said:
Why?

What would be wrong with waiting to implement mass automation until we can adjust and figure out what we are going to do with our populations?

Or hey, we can just rush headlong into the Automated Industrial Revolution and let the chips land where they may. If one revolution is fun, several at the same time is a party I don't want to miss right?
Click to expand...
 
Spidey329 said:
Now, if only these apparel companies would put these machines stateside, it'd at least add a few jobs to our economy - sure Asia loses a ton of jobs, but we'd gain a few. But we both know they'll just place them in Asia factories.

Factories which will then expand and replace them with counterfeit machines made by Chinese companies. So the only thing the US economy nets is cheap goods and Wall Street gets the higher profit margins it's jonesing for.
Click to expand...
There's absolutely no reason not to put these machines close to where the customers would buy the final products.
Not only would you cut on labor costs because of the replacement, but you'd cut on transportation costs. It's a double whammy which is sure to keep the bean counters and stock holders sweating with excitement.

If you take this kind of automation a step further, you could make custom sizes and made to fit clothing with a custom order because it would be made by a machine right next door to where they're selling it.
 
lcpiper said:
Why?

What would be wrong with waiting to implement mass automation until we can adjust and figure out what we are going to do with our populations?

Or hey, we can just rush headlong into the Automated Industrial Revolution and let the chips land where they may. If one revolution is fun, several at the same time is a party I don't want to miss right?
Click to expand...
Sorry man, i think this would be a terrible idea.
If you slow down progress through artificial means, you won't stay competitive. If you don't stay competitive, then you're doomed to failure.
If you have one country (lets say the US) ban or limit these kind of automatons, then the american companies won't be able to compete with the indian/chinese/african/etc companies who are using them. The costs of the goods won't even be close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top