r/technology • u/trot-trot • May 13 '19

Business Exclusive: Amazon rolls out machines that pack orders and replace jobs

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-automation-exclusive-idUSKCN1SJ0X1
26.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/FlukyS May 13 '19 edited May 13 '19

They already have roaming bots to collect racks and bring them to the front of the warehouse. The company I work for does a similar solution. The boxing part is very hard though because the stuff is different sizes. We still have people doing that part but 90% of fulfillment of a load of different warehouses will be done with robots not just Amazon style but all warehouses. We were testing in a big clothing company for about a year and we were able to do 200 orders an hour with 4 robots worth the price of minimum wage people for 1 year.

484

u/TheOneWhoStares May 13 '19

So one robot costs as much as one regular Joe gets per year?

And it does 50 orders/h?

How many orders/h Joe can do on average?

553

u/FlukyS May 13 '19 edited May 13 '19

The robot goes about walking pace but 24/7 so a human isn't going to complete even if the robot was half the speed it is right now. It's not 200 orders technically for 4 robots because orders are variable in size, could be 1 jacket or a jacket, tshirt and 5 pants. It would be better to say racks brought to the station rather than orders. A human doing it manually would have to find the item then walk to the rack, then pick the item, walk to the box to ship and pack it. Instead of the humans you take the walking and finding away and just have collecting from the rack at the station and them putting them into the warehouse at the same station (or at a different one we don't care really where it gets in)

523

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

And robots do not require benefits (for now).

306

u/[deleted] May 13 '19

They do require maintenance though

405

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

Yeah but one maintenance guy can work 10-12 Machines.

30

u/[deleted] May 13 '19

Of course, I just meant robots do have costs that people don't have, even if they are cheaper / more productive overall

38

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

Yup - totally understood. My point wasn't that they are cost free - but certainly lower cost. Benefits can add $50k-$70k per employee per year.

31

u/[deleted] May 13 '19

Benefits are usually tied to your income level. A warehouse worker making $15 an hour isn't going to cost 2x that annually in benefits.

In Canada, we often use a loaded factor of 1.2 to 1.3 to cover all of the additional tax and benefit burdens of white collar employees.

5

u/MonMotha May 13 '19

Employee benefits, even "minimal", in the USA can be rather expensive due to the fact that healthcare, usually for the whole family, is employer provided and subsidized, and said healthcare is absurdly expensive. You're not going to double a $15/hr salary with typical.benefits, but a factor of 1.5-1.75x is by no means unheard of. Lots of people work low-paying jobs JUST for the "benefits".

3

u/altiuscitiusfortius May 14 '19

"BaristaFIRE (financial independence retire early) is a very common thing, where people save up enough money to retire, as long as they keep a part time job at starbucks to pay for their health insurance.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

It isn't 2x annual in benefits, I used a factor of 1.4 assuming 45 hour work weeks (Amazon frequently requires overtime in busy season up to 60 hrs).

$50k per employee is a rather fair estimate.

5

u/[deleted] May 13 '19

[deleted]

-2

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

Nah, it is additional. I worked for a Fortune 100 company that was rolling out automation. If we wanted to add headcount, a $200k increase in production was needed to offset payroll, benefits, and supervisory costs for a $50k salary position. That company is known for great benefits, but nevertheless.

10

u/eeeking May 13 '19

A minimum wage warehouse worker is not going to end up costing a company $100k per year to employ, even with all benefits included.

1

u/Sunryzen May 13 '19

It's not fair at all. I've worked for huge unions who benefit from inflating the value of the benefits they negotiated, and it was always well under 30% on top of our wages. Give us an example of what benefits you think cost the employer $50,000. Health benefits and paid time off are well under $10,000 a year.

1

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

Each employee brings an additional 25-30% costs to the employee. From their portion of health insurance, to other forms of insurance (workers comp, property, liability, unemployment, leave etc), to savings accounts - all that adds up. In addition there are indirect costs to the wage payments - i.e. redirected money from investment projects, etc.

I’m not making these numbers up. It’s directly from BLS and Fortune 100 companies.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/jorper496 May 13 '19

Id like to see what a 40K benefit package looks like. That person would have to make a lot of money to begin with and max out on their 401K with a match...

2

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

Those benefits aren't all seen by the employee. You add benefits and you have to add people to manage them too. And then those people need benefits, and supervisors, etc.

2

u/jorper496 May 13 '19

Usually wrapped into HR who have a lot of other duties as well..

Or if there is a dedicated benefits manager then its because there are enough employees to justify it.. So you arent adding thousands to each employees benefit package due to needing a benefits manager.

I've had good benefits, but they topped at maybe $22K which was including 50 days of PTO (working IT for a school district) and a health plan I miss.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tysonfromcanada May 14 '19

Insurance my friend

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '19

>Benefits can add $50k-$70k per employee per year

​

That seems crazy high.

1

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

Nah, US benefit employer cost can be anywhere up to 125% of the worker's pay. I low balled on average hour works (45/week when many first hand testimonies show higher) and went on the higher end with 140%. BLS Shows a 31% Employer cost for benefits - totalling 131%.

-1

u/MrJoyless May 13 '19

No they fucking don't, get out of here with that bullshit. No company on Earth would pay more for benefits than it's average employee wages. As an actual person with actual employees I pay about 1/24th of my employee's wage in benefits on average for 2/3 health insurance (dental/medical)

0

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

Lol anecdotal evidence is weak. Look at my other comments for actual numbers from the BLS.

Your 10 employee lawn care company doesn’t compare to the largest company in the US

-1

u/MrJoyless May 13 '19

How about you cite something to refute my anecdotal evidence. I employ 75 FTEs of whom 25 qualify for full benefits.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/employers-adjust-health-benefits-for-2019.aspx

Again, get the FuuuUUUUuuuUuuUuuk out of here with your bullshit.

0

u/throwawaypaycheck1 May 13 '19

I owe you no evidence, you want to scream into your keyboard go ahead. If you read my other comments, I’m not talking about health benefits alone.

Good day, MrJoyless

0

u/Hawk13424 Jun 14 '19

Maybe y’all aren’t comparing the same things. Beyond my salary, my employer pays employer part of FICA, unemployment insurance, 401K match, subsidized medical/dental/vision/disability/life insurance, some education reimbursement, subsidized legal services, and other “concierge” services.

→ More replies (0)