The number of industrial robots in china will increase tenfold to 1.8 million units by 2025. Up to 70% of the robots used in China will be made in China which will increase from 30% now.
According to the International Federation of Robots, China will have 40% of total worldwide robotic sales by 2019, an increase from 27% percent in 2015. China is currently the biggest shareholder of the robotic global market at a net worth of $30 billion. It is currently ranked No. 1 in sales for industrial robots. South Korea and Japan are ranked second and third, respectively. The U.S. is ranked fourth.
The density of automation usage lags other countries: 68 robots per 10,000 industrial workers, compared with 631 bots for every 10,000 manufacturing staff in South Korea, the global leader in automation. Singapore, Germany and Japan all have higher densities of automation than China.
China wants to more than double that usage density to 150 for every 10,000 workers by 2020. China target is 400,000 industrial robots by the end of 2020.
China has about 24 million industrial workers.
Chinese tech companies have invested and acquired in robotic leaders. In 2017, Midea, an electrical appliance manufacturer, purchased German robotics company Kuka.
The Guangdong provincial government offered 943 billion yuan in subsidies between 2015 and 2018 to help local manufacturers automate. Zhejiang province has provided 800 billion yuan to spur 36,000 enterprises to make a similar switch by 2020.
400 companies of the Guangdong industry guild will have double-digit sales growth for their robots for the next few years.
A skilled factory worker earns about 36,000 yuan a year in wages and benefits in China’s poorer provinces and second-tier cities, away from the coast. Total remuneration can exceed 60,000 yuan in cities nearer the coast and along the eastern seaboard, like in the Pearl River and Yangtze River deltas.
A 200,000 yuan robot that can do the job of three humans can recoup its capital cost in 22 months in central provinces, or in a little over a year in coastal cities.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
I think it will be evident that countries with labor price advantage will not be able to maintain that advantage with the current trajectory of automation level increase, it’s not totally inconceivable that 95% or more of manufacturing will be automated in the next 20-30 years. It’s probably good for the US manufacturing sector, not so sure about job creation though.
Watch out Europe & America … and India … and Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Korea, México and Canada. China, already the global leader in underpriced labor — and frankly rather well educated labor at that — will come not just to specialize in automating its manufacturing with robotics, but domestically making the ‘bots as well. There was a time when entire countries (ahem… such as China) would act unilaterally within sovereign borders to enhance the competitiveness or to bolster the manufacturing prowess of what their leadership was convinced would be critically important capabilities moving forward. Much of what passed for innovation in some countries came as a byproduct of an intense investment in the military or the sciences nationally. Today — with so much of what is “important” not actually having either a direct or even plausibly indirect military purpose — today it seems that such sovereign national advance, perhaps even competition, to propel key technological innovations has all but ceased in much of the world. DARPA continues apace, but its focus is so “computer centric”. Not sure that the gains realized therein are actually fostering collateral advance in other technologies. Point of this comment? Mostly to foster awareness of the need for government investment in future-tech. With ADMITTEDLY the handful of gotchas is lead by “governments seem unable to mandate innovation of particular things … largely because they’re magnets for the whole nation’s contrary (contrarian?) polity-of-jerrymandering state interests.” Just saying GoatGuy
I think it will be evident that countries with labor price advantage will not be able to maintain that advantage with the current trajectory of automation level increase it’s not totally inconceivable that 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or more of manufacturing will be automated in the next 20-30 years. It’s probably good for the US manufacturing sector not so sure about job creation though.
Watch out Europe & America … and India … and Taiwan Japan Indonesia Korea México and Canada. China already the global leader in underpriced labor — and frankly rather well educated labor at that — will come not just to specialize in automating its manufacturing with robotics but domestically making the ‘bots as well. There was a time when entire countries (ahem… such as China) would act unilaterally within sovereign borders to enhance the competitiveness or to bolster the manufacturing prowess of what their leadership was convinced would be critically important capabilities moving forward. Much of what passed for innovation in some countries came as a byproduct of an intense investment in the military or the sciences nationally. Today — with so much of what is important”” not actually having either a direct or even plausibly indirect military purpose — today it seems that such sovereign national advance”” perhaps even competition to propel key technological innovations has all but ceased in much of the world. DARPA continues apace”” but its focus is so “”””computer centric””””. Not sure that the gains realized therein are actually fostering collateral advance in other technologies. Point of this comment?Mostly to foster awareness of the need for government investment in future-tech. With ADMITTEDLY the handful of gotchas is lead by “”””governments seem unable to mandate innovation of particular things … largely because they’re magnets for the whole nation’s contrary (contrarian?) polity-of-jerrymandering state interests.””””Just sayingGoatGuy”””””””
In the new global automated economy, the winners will be those with the best robots who can serve all their domestic needs, not countries who can develop a marketable specialism in exporting goods. And even if they did specialize, they would still have to move production as close as possible to the target market, ideally co-locate it there. So, worldwide international trade of manufactured products characterized by deep and long supply chain networks will shrivel up. This means nations that overly depend upon exports right now for their economies are in for a rougher time in adjustment than those who have net deficits of goods like the US does. (There is no real trade deficit for the US, btw. Every $1 that is spent on stuff imported in is balanced by the sale of investment vehicles paid by money coming back in. In fact, there is a net surplus when you look at it this way.) The only thing the robo ships will be shipping will be refined raw materials mostly. So if China wants to still have access/make money from the US market, it will need to open up robotic production centers in the US. No more jobs for Next Big China!
rather well educated labor at that” Not as educated/skilled as Mexican labor. Not anymore. Not as cheap, either.
And to whom, pray tell, will the Chinese sell all the products produced by said robots? The US? Ha! ‘America First’ is here to stay…even amongst Democrats (The Bernie-Ocasio Wing). To themselves? Right. If they could get rich selling to themselves they already would have been doing that starting 70 years ago.
In the new global automated economy the winners will be those with the best robots who can serveall their domestic needs not countries who can develop a marketable specialism in exporting goods.And even if they did specialize they would still have to move production as close as possible to thetarget market ideally co-locate it there.So worldwide international trade of manufactured products characterized by deep and long supply chain networks will shrivel up. This means nations that overly depend upon exports right now for their economies are in for a rougher time in adjustment than those who have net deficits of goods like the US does. (There is no real trade deficit for the US btw. Every $1 that is spent on stuff imported in is balanced by the sale of investment vehicles paid by money coming back in. In fact there is a net surplus when you look at it this way.)The only thing the robo ships will be shipping will be refined raw materials mostly.So if China wants to still have access/make money from the US market it will need to open up robotic production centers in the US. No more jobs for Next Big China!
rather well educated labor at that””Not as educated/skilled as Mexican labor. Not anymore. Not as cheap”””” either.”””
And to whom pray tell will the Chinese sell all the products produced by said robots?The US? Ha! ‘America First’ is here to stay…even amongst Democrats (The Bernie-Ocasio Wing). To themselves? Right. If they could get rich selling to themselves they already would have been doing that starting 70 years ago.
I recommend reading The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato.
I recommend reading The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato.
I recommend reading The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato.
I recommend reading The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato.
In the new global automated economy, the winners will be those with the best robots who can serve all their domestic needs, not countries who can develop a marketable specialism in exporting goods. And even if they did specialize, they would still have to move production as close as possible to the target market, ideally co-locate it there. So, worldwide international trade of manufactured products characterized by deep and long supply chain networks will shrivel up. This means nations that overly depend upon exports right now for their economies are in for a rougher time in adjustment than those who have net deficits of goods like the US does. (There is no real trade deficit for the US, btw. Every $1 that is spent on stuff imported in is balanced by the sale of investment vehicles paid by money coming back in. In fact, there is a net surplus when you look at it this way.) The only thing the robo ships will be shipping will be refined raw materials mostly. So if China wants to still have access/make money from the US market, it will need to open up robotic production centers in the US. No more jobs for Next Big China!
In the new global automated economy the winners will be those with the best robots who can serveall their domestic needs not countries who can develop a marketable specialism in exporting goods.And even if they did specialize they would still have to move production as close as possible to thetarget market ideally co-locate it there.So worldwide international trade of manufactured products characterized by deep and long supply chain networks will shrivel up. This means nations that overly depend upon exports right now for their economies are in for a rougher time in adjustment than those who have net deficits of goods like the US does. (There is no real trade deficit for the US btw. Every $1 that is spent on stuff imported in is balanced by the sale of investment vehicles paid by money coming back in. In fact there is a net surplus when you look at it this way.)The only thing the robo ships will be shipping will be refined raw materials mostly.So if China wants to still have access/make money from the US market it will need to open up robotic production centers in the US. No more jobs for Next Big China!
rather well educated labor at that” Not as educated/skilled as Mexican labor. Not anymore. Not as cheap, either.
rather well educated labor at that””Not as educated/skilled as Mexican labor. Not anymore. Not as cheap”””” either.”””
And to whom, pray tell, will the Chinese sell all the products produced by said robots? The US? Ha! ‘America First’ is here to stay…even amongst Democrats (The Bernie-Ocasio Wing). To themselves? Right. If they could get rich selling to themselves they already would have been doing that starting 70 years ago.
And to whom pray tell will the Chinese sell all the products produced by said robots?The US? Ha! ‘America First’ is here to stay…even amongst Democrats (The Bernie-Ocasio Wing). To themselves? Right. If they could get rich selling to themselves they already would have been doing that starting 70 years ago.
I recommend reading The Entrepreneurial State by Mariana Mazzucato.
In the new global automated economy, the winners will be those with the best robots who can serve
all their domestic needs, not countries who can develop a marketable specialism in exporting goods.
And even if they did specialize, they would still have to move production as close as possible to the
target market, ideally co-locate it there.
So, worldwide international trade of manufactured products characterized by deep and long supply chain networks will shrivel up. This means nations that overly depend upon exports right now for their economies are in for a rougher time in adjustment than those who have net deficits of goods like the US does. (There is no real trade deficit for the US, btw. Every $1 that is spent on stuff imported in is balanced by the sale of investment vehicles paid by money coming back in. In fact, there is a net surplus when you look at it this way.)
The only thing the robo ships will be shipping will be refined raw materials mostly.
So if China wants to still have access/make money from the US market, it will need to open up robotic production centers in the US. No more jobs for Next Big China!
“rather well educated labor at that”
Not as educated/skilled as Mexican labor. Not anymore. Not as cheap, either.
And to whom, pray tell, will the Chinese sell all the products produced by said robots?
The US? Ha! ‘America First’ is here to stay…even amongst Democrats (The Bernie-Ocasio Wing).
To themselves? Right. If they could get rich selling to themselves they already would have been doing that starting 70 years ago.
I think it will be evident that countries with labor price advantage will not be able to maintain that advantage with the current trajectory of automation level increase, it’s not totally inconceivable that 95% or more of manufacturing will be automated in the next 20-30 years. It’s probably good for the US manufacturing sector, not so sure about job creation though.
I think it will be evident that countries with labor price advantage will not be able to maintain that advantage with the current trajectory of automation level increase it’s not totally inconceivable that 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} or more of manufacturing will be automated in the next 20-30 years. It’s probably good for the US manufacturing sector not so sure about job creation though.
Watch out Europe & America … and India … and Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Korea, México and Canada. China, already the global leader in underpriced labor — and frankly rather well educated labor at that — will come not just to specialize in automating its manufacturing with robotics, but domestically making the ‘bots as well. There was a time when entire countries (ahem… such as China) would act unilaterally within sovereign borders to enhance the competitiveness or to bolster the manufacturing prowess of what their leadership was convinced would be critically important capabilities moving forward. Much of what passed for innovation in some countries came as a byproduct of an intense investment in the military or the sciences nationally. Today — with so much of what is “important” not actually having either a direct or even plausibly indirect military purpose — today it seems that such sovereign national advance, perhaps even competition, to propel key technological innovations has all but ceased in much of the world. DARPA continues apace, but its focus is so “computer centric”. Not sure that the gains realized therein are actually fostering collateral advance in other technologies. Point of this comment? Mostly to foster awareness of the need for government investment in future-tech. With ADMITTEDLY the handful of gotchas is lead by “governments seem unable to mandate innovation of particular things … largely because they’re magnets for the whole nation’s contrary (contrarian?) polity-of-jerrymandering state interests.” Just saying GoatGuy
Watch out Europe & America … and India … and Taiwan Japan Indonesia Korea México and Canada. China already the global leader in underpriced labor — and frankly rather well educated labor at that — will come not just to specialize in automating its manufacturing with robotics but domestically making the ‘bots as well. There was a time when entire countries (ahem… such as China) would act unilaterally within sovereign borders to enhance the competitiveness or to bolster the manufacturing prowess of what their leadership was convinced would be critically important capabilities moving forward. Much of what passed for innovation in some countries came as a byproduct of an intense investment in the military or the sciences nationally. Today — with so much of what is important”” not actually having either a direct or even plausibly indirect military purpose — today it seems that such sovereign national advance”” perhaps even competition to propel key technological innovations has all but ceased in much of the world. DARPA continues apace”” but its focus is so “”””computer centric””””. Not sure that the gains realized therein are actually fostering collateral advance in other technologies. Point of this comment?Mostly to foster awareness of the need for government investment in future-tech. With ADMITTEDLY the handful of gotchas is lead by “”””governments seem unable to mandate innovation of particular things … largely because they’re magnets for the whole nation’s contrary (contrarian?) polity-of-jerrymandering state interests.””””Just sayingGoatGuy”””””””
I think it will be evident that countries with labor price advantage will not be able to maintain that advantage with the current trajectory of automation level increase, it’s not totally inconceivable that 95% or more of manufacturing will be automated in the next 20-30 years. It’s probably good for the US manufacturing sector, not so sure about job creation though.
Watch out Europe & America … and India … and Taiwan, Japan, Indonesia, Korea, México and Canada. China, already the global leader in underpriced labor — and frankly rather well educated labor at that — will come not just to specialize in automating its manufacturing with robotics, but domestically making the ‘bots as well.
There was a time when entire countries (ahem… such as China) would act unilaterally within sovereign borders to enhance the competitiveness or to bolster the manufacturing prowess of what their leadership was convinced would be critically important capabilities moving forward.
Much of what passed for innovation in some countries came as a byproduct of an intense investment in the military or the sciences nationally. Today — with so much of what is “important” not actually having either a direct or even plausibly indirect military purpose — today it seems that such sovereign national advance, perhaps even competition, to propel key technological innovations has all but ceased in much of the world.
DARPA continues apace, but its focus is so “computer centric”. Not sure that the gains realized therein are actually fostering collateral advance in other technologies.
Point of this comment?
Mostly to foster awareness of the need for government investment in future-tech.
With ADMITTEDLY the handful of gotchas is lead by “governments seem unable to mandate innovation of particular things … largely because they’re magnets for the whole nation’s contrary (contrarian?) polity-of-jerrymandering state interests.”
Just saying
GoatGuy