Control.com - Nerds in Control

[Originally posted 1/29/1998]
Recently I designed a machine which automated a process in a food
factory. The installation was commissioned on the line with the manual workers standing by.
On completion of the commissioning the manual workers were 'released' (sacked). One gleaming new machine, five less people! I found this a strange situation as those workers had helped me in the early stages of machine development and now they were no longer needed. I was interested in how members of the list rationalised these situations.

marc sinclair

[Originally posted 1/29/1998]
It is a serious pity that our culture militates against the teaching of ethics in b-school and e-school.

I've done the same thing. I sure didn't feel good about it. And the one time I was called in to look at automating a process which was currently run by one human "expert system" per shift when I had to say that it couldn't be done in an automated fashion I felt a sort of perverse glee.

It isn't good enough to say that workers must now be responsible for their own training and therefore they should be ready to be let go at any time. That's an ethical cop out.

And it is often difficult (read "impossible") to say, "I won't do this work because it will surplus 5 people." In the first place, someone else _will_ do the project, and you _do_ have to eat. About the only thing that you gain is the other guy gets the bad karma (assuming you believe in that sort of thing).

It isn't properly a subject that the project engineer, alone, can deal with. What needs to happen is that managements need to be proactive in assisting displaced workers, finding them places in their organization, or helping them to find outplacement.

Otherwise, you get to be, as somebody described a company to me the other day, "the sort of company that made unions and strikes necessary."

Walt Boyes

[Originally posted 2/2/1998]
To list,

This topic surely has touched everyone. But, technology changes and society must change with it. I'm sure there were many blacksmiths, stable
owners, wagon makers, and sailmakers that would not vote for cars, gasoline engines, or non-wind driven ships.

How do you make sure it doesn't happen to you??? Unless you inherited lots of money, the only answer is to make sure you have a skill that
society needs and will pay for. Period. (ok, ok, winning the lottery might be another method but I wouldn't count on it)

Don't fool yourself into thinking that YOU don't "contribute" to the effect. Every time you email this list asking for help, comments, advice,
etc., it means you are doing your job more efficiently and your employer needs fewer employees with which to solve problems, get products to market, etc. Everytime you email someone, there is no letter to mail -
contributing to fewer paper mill operators, ink factory workers, postal carriers, etc.

The issue of re-training about-to-be-displaced workers is a valid concern and a separate, but related, issue. Companies many times forget the morale impact of "sacking" workers and the potential in re-training already loyal employees. The cost of training people can be high, especially if they get trained and get better jobs elsewhere. But, what if you DON'T train them and they stay? Then, you are forced into unpleasant alternatives to survive as a company.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

Kevin Wixom
kwixom@tsc.net

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
This snippet from Kevin Wixom brings up a question:

>The cost of training people can be high, especially if they get
>trained and get better jobs elsewhere.

A US colleague of mine who's now working at a Philips machinefabrik in Holland was amazed at the in-depth training of machinists there.

Apprentices spend three years learning not just how to operate a CNC, but physics, math, metallurgy, etc. Afterward, the workers are expected to be loyal, and of course, most European political and cultural systems encourage staying at the same job.

Now, a top notch tool & die maker in the US, such as my brother-in-law, can move anywhere he wants, and he's done so. But he never received formal training from an employer, and paid for his own
technical school tuition.

Would long term contracts in return for training help US mfrs acquire and retain workforces with the right skills, or am I naive?
Or are highly skilled "knowledge workers" better off as free agents in the US?


John Kowal
Account Manager
The Brady Company

Marketing o Advertising o Public relations
email: jkowal@bradyco.com N80 W12878 Fond du Lac Avenue
T: 414 255 0100 Menomonee Falls, WI 53051-4410
F: 414 255 3388

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
John Kowal wrote:
>
> Now, a top notch tool & die maker in the US, such as my brother-in-
> law, can move anywhere he wants, and he's done so. But he never
> received formal training from an employer, and paid for his own
> technical school tuition.
>
> Would long term contracts in return for training help US mfrs
> acquire and retain workforces with the right skills, or am I naive?
> Or are highly skilled "knowledge workers" better off as free agents
> in the US?

Kowal makes an interesting point. Very few people recognize a trained instrumentation technician or a tool and die maker as a
knowledge worker, but they are! So is a master machinist, and so are many other "hourly workers" from years past. It is in a company's best interest to offer as much training and incentive to keep these knowledge workers as they can, because if it is done with the right attitude by the company, it will reinforce the loyalty
needed to keep these workers for years and years....

....how will unions deal with their members asking for individual contracts because of their specialized knowledge?

Walt Boyes

[Originally posted 1/29/1998]
How do you think that the project/new machine was justified?
By DL (direct labor) take-out!

Actually, we do install new machinery for more reasons than just labor reduction: quality improvement, process control/accuracy, throughput increase, SAFETY, etc.

Dave Ebert
Acting Manager, VLS Equipment Development
Thomson Consumer Electronics
Marion, IN, USA

[Originally posted 1/29/1998]
Rationalize it? Nope, that's not part of my charter. Expect it, admit it openly to the people who help me as I design a system, and sympathize with them, yes.

Webster's 9th New College Dictionary says automation is "3: automatically controlled operation of an apparatus, process or system by
mechanical or electronic devices that take the place of human organs of observation, effort and decision"

If anyone working in a process that can be automated doesn't see the risk to their livelihood, they will become technofodder, consumed by the rampant march of "progress". Does that make me and the rest of the folks on this list agents of destruction and despair? No. I wasn't born into this line of work, rather evolved from previous employments, and will continue to do so while I wish to remain employable at my current salary. How much of my job is automated now compared to 5 or 10 years ago? A lot! How many SCADA systems were around 20 years ago, and today? Is control system design "automated" now compared to stacking a
bank of relays on a backboard and stringing a mile of wire?

I suspect many people on this list have dragged themselves up from the shop floor and evolved into what they are now. And if they were to go
look at the position they once held, would find it filled by a PLC or some other device they now specify in their systems.

No need to rationalize what you do for a living. If it were not for people like the ones this list serves, we might still be planting corn with a pointed stick and praying to the weather gods for rain.

Carl Ramer

[Originally posted 1/29/1998]
I've been on this list since 1995, and this is the first time I can
recall a discussion at the gut-level, re: displacement of workers by automation.

Thoughts for the list:

1) yes, the operative word is "rationalize," because in this case, apparently, automation = job loss, not reassignment, retraining or better work environment. Do we try to make ourselves feel better, and say "oh well," or would addressing this issue within the automation community be better for the economy and for the public opinion of automation?

2) in a macro view, you can look at those fired workers as casualties in battle for global competitiveness, etc. That is cold, but would you have your job if you did not keep your skills current, etc.?

3) Do we feel any obligation, personal or corporate, to sell automation only to companies who demonstrate how they will help displaced workers with outplacement, education, etc.?

John Kowal


John Kowal
Account Manager
The Brady Company

Marketing o Advertising o Public relations
email: jkowal@bradyco.com N80 W12878 Fond du Lac Avenue
T: 414 255 0100 Menomonee Falls, WI 53051-4410
F: 414 255 3388

[Originally posted 1/29/1998]
I don't feel too sorry that people are sometimes displaced (read sacked - laid off - etc). It is usually a temporary thing, and it is absolutely necessary
that progress be made, even at the expense of a few jobs here and there (except mine, of course).

Seriously, the fact of the matter is that people will have their lives changed by what we do. I suspect that most of these changes are for the better, but a few are not, or at least are perceived that way. I am sure, however, that if
i didn't do it, and no one else did it either, that the company would eventually die for lack of a quality widget to sell at a competitive price.

[Originally posted 1/29/1998]
1. Was the job being done by the people dirty, dangerous, repetitive?
2. Could the people be reasonably expected to maintain the required performance for extended periods? (e.g., picking out faulty oranges from a line)?
3. Can the product be sold at a competitive rate and still pay the workers a living wage? (If not, the alternative may be a lot more people "down the road" when the company goes belly up.)


Bruce
Bruce Durdle
bmdurdle@taranaki.ac.nz

[Originally posted 1/29/1998]
Hello Marc Sinclair,

In my experience people are not permanently replaced by automation. Automation helps do a better job at a lower cost. What you have done
is saved the jobs of the everyone else in the plant. If you do not do all you can to process better food at a lower cost, your compition will.
If the competition wins in a big way your plant will be eliminated. Therefore you helped all the other workers in your plant. However, I would hope that management would not be so hard as to sack your five people but wait for attrition to lower the work force and retrain one or two of the five to help you maintain the new equipment and even help you develop more automation. The best thing we can do for our fellow employees is to find more ways to process product better and at a lower cost.

Neil Waddell
Stoughton Trailers

[Originally posted 1/30/1998]
It's a jarring scene Marc depicts, having your machine go online and send five people packing. One gleaming automaton destroys five livelihoods. An odd but very common thing, to feel guilty about an accomplishment.

"Rationalization" is the right word: Using reason and thought to understand an emotion or instinct. And I have two:

When I was seventeen, I got my first real job as a production welder at Alaskan Copper Works in Seattle. One of the things I did was use a balky
pantograph to convert part profiles into NC machine code. Three months later I had an IBM AT converting the profiles automatically and I had fixed the CNC and torch gantry and... I had obsoleted _myself_. And I'm no longer a welder.

The second rationalization for the "morality of automation" is the many occasions when I've attended a machine breakdown and been thrust into the role of doing the automated machine's task by hand- you did it too, Marc, didn't you? Building a machine that deprives a man of his shift of
backbreaking drudgery is nothing I feel ashamed of. Ask any draft horse how he feels about diesel engines.

John Henry died with a hammer in his hand because he only knew how to swing a hammer.

Ken Roach
Rockwell Automation
Seattle, WA

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
Ken Roach from Rockwell, John Kowal of The Brady Company and Neil
Waddell from Stoughton Trailers have the grasp of this issue. If the point is going to be debated, though, you have to maintain a strict difference in the debate between micro and macro economics. Something that is tragic in the particular may be beneficial in the general. When a wildebeest on the Serengetti Plain sadly succumbs to the lion's
predation, it would be absurd to respond by preventing lions from hunting. If a family member or friend loses their job due to an influx of automation, our natural instinct is to rail against a heartless employer even though we can simultaneously acknowledge the possibility
that the employer's pruning will create a net beneficial effect in the longer term. Generally speaking, employers who sack people unnecessarily
usually have the consequences of their foolishness visited upon them and don't ultimately survive.

Ideally, redundancy should be seen as (and indeed, is for many) an opportunity to upgrade skills, improve qualifications and/ or retrain.
IMHO the debate, if its going to do any good, should concentrate on the obstacles and barriers to people re-joining an increasingly
technology-based economy.

We might start for example, by examining what part we play in creating these barriers. As engineers, we are often guilty of rendering
technology innaccessible and even frightening to people who didn't enjoy the benefit of an engineering education - and even those who were
educated a few cycles ago, but didn't keep up.

We insist on using gobbledey-gook words and if we can't find an obscure, confusing term for something - we invent one with relish. We all too
often take an active pleasure in writing undocumented code that no-one (not even ourselves after a while) can figure out, let alone those
people whose livelyhoods depend on the process being controlled. We systematically err on the side of over-complexity and happily justify
this with the extra "features" we have created (even if they don't actually work) without feeling any need to question whether there is
any real economic (much less social or environmental) justification for what we are doing.

Let's face it, we engineers have big egos and we love erecting monuments to our self-perceived cleverness. As a breed, we have reduced the
effective economic life cycle of most technology to approx 3 years and yet we take great satisfaction in claiming that the fruits of our labour will last for 20 years! We, who uniquely understand the folly of positive feedback loops, have majestically created this crazy technology
race, a self-perpetuating arena of bloody combat, and then, it seems, loftily tut-tut at the advent of casualties.

Maybe we should try a to follow the example set by Rufus Smith and engage more in an examination of what the future consequences of our endeavours may be. I certainly believe we should be better prepared to communicate about technology and its prospective consequences in terms more accessible to the public at large.

Food for thought?

Best regards
Derek Jones

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
Derek

I do agree with some of the things you state. However, I think you are *wrong* to tar all control people with the same brush. I personally pride myself on the level of documentation I provide in the software I write, and furthermore, run training courses for our maintenance people to ensure that they grasp it. Sure, some don't get it, but I'm making the effort. This effort is positively received by *everyone* involved at our
company on the maintenance side, and they appreciate the effort I put in. Okay, so I've got the so-called high-flying degree, and some of the code I write can be complex *when it needs to be*.
As I say, most of what you wrote is probably true, but there are a few control people out here who are actually *HUMAN*, and do understand the impact their systems can have on a 24 hour a day, 364 days a year production plant.
Regards
David.

[Originally posted 1/30/1998]
When computer revolution began, many said that computers would be bad for the economy because they would replace workers. While computers have taken the jobs of many workers, they have created many more higher paying jobs.

Did Thomas Edison do a bad thing by virtually eliminating the profession of candlestick making?

[Originally posted 1/30/1998]
Dear Marc Sinclair,

In India, this problem of replacement of manpower by Automation system is hurdle for carrying out big automation job. It is not because of worker
opposition. It is more economic to have workers to do the job that the price of complete automation. However labor have their own problems. So generally in India the automation comes in slowly. Usually the new workers are not recruited and automation is carried out.

But the fact remains that the manpower is replaced by automatic plant. Which is true for use computers in banks.

Umesh

[Originally posted 1/30/1998]
It's not a pleasant thought, is it.

I remember when I was younger and naiver and working on our first machine and how exciting it was that the machine actually worked and could put out the same production faster and more reliably than a roomful of envelope-stuffing women (and I don't mean to be gender insensitive here). Until someone pointed out that that roomful of women were now out of their jobs.

Rationalizations I used (or was told) then:
1) The company will find them other similar work to do.
2) It's the kind of grunt work people shouldn't be doing if a machine can do it.
3) It's a service to the customer that the product is of better quality.
4) The savings could be passed down to the customer. (I don't think I was THAT naive!)
5) These jobs were typically second incomes and an excuse to get out of the house.
... rationalizations abound if you don't want to think too hard about them.

But this situation is not about to get better. If you think automation generates
this sort of (problem?, dilemma?, paradox?), look at what the INTERNET will cause:

The face of retailing will change. Bradlees department stores closed recently and I read that
JC Penney's is closing some stores. 4,000 people laid off. Some people blame Walmart.

But that will be the tip of the iceberg. Eventually people will buy many products they
normally shop for at stores, over the Internet (it's happening now). Imagine, at your fingertips, product reviews, product evaluations by fellow netizens, followed by automated agents that will track down the lowest price or quickest delivery. Sounds like a deal for the consumer, right?

But then who would then need salespeople? warehouse people? (the warehouses will also be largely automated or maybe there are no warehouses because the internet allows the manufacturer to build to the orders received that day), maintenance people? (not many needed to take care of the machines, because the machine will tell the human what needs to be replaced/fixed/washed/adjusted)

We'll just have more truck drivers to drive the stuff to your home.

What about the services that depend on the patronage of those people? Restaurants. Doctors. Vinyl Siding Salesmen (oh that's right, no salesmen - only installation people).

I am getting a little carried away here by my touched nerve.

Illigitimi Non Carborundum! (sic)

Hakuna Matata!

Think Happy Thoughts!

RufusVS@aol.com

[Originally posted 1/30/1998]
Marc
It isn't nice to think that individuals are "out of work" due to your actions - I have a similar role to the example you gave (also in food industry). I would counter the negatives with the following;

1. Automation itself generates many jobs for (other) people - OEMs, application engs, software eng, hardware eng etc etc.

2. More complex factories open more opportunities for maintenance and support roles (maintenance personnel, service engineers etc).

3. It provides solutions to applications where "manual handling" is an issue and thus prevents people becoming injured from their work.

4. It is inevitable in competitive industry, that businesses want to undercut competitors and offer the customer the most cost-effective solution. If some businesses chose not to employ such technology to improve their competitive
edge, there would be a higher chance of even more people being out of work i.e. business failure.

As it goes, it is the survival of the fittest.....
David.

[Originally posted 2/2/1998]
at our company, at least in the politically incorrect tobacco side,

automation means re-assignment and re-training
for real - the company has a long term agreement with our unions on this subject

but... that aside we engineers should not feel guilty.... automation = productivity, quality, agility = competition = survival because of productivity we have 40 hour workweeks instead of 72, we have decent wages, productivity shared is good...

productivity gains greedily and exploitively reserved for management and/or stockholders is something else

it's the people who decide how the productivity is used that should wrestle with this one Henry Ford had some decent quotes on this subject....

Randy Sweeney
Philip Morris R&D

I have another question for you: can anyone rationalize the economic rape of domestic engineers by the importation of migrant H1B foreign engineers under the fraud of a shortage of domestic USA engineers? There are PLENTY of qualified, experienced US engineers with maybe a few to many gray hairs to suit the greedy like Sun, Microsoft, HP, Intel, .com's, Cisco, etc., etc., etc.

John Coppini

[Originally posted 1/30/1998]
In response to Marc Sinclair's question:

WARNING: This isn't straight techie stuff.

Thanks for thinking about this, Marc. I have two suggestions, one for Americans, the other for everyone:

1 Our society needs to begin planning toward shortening the workweek again. At the moment, we're going for "economic growth": we can produce more cars than we can drive, grow more food than is good for us to eat, build more houses than we can live in, burn more energy than we can replace, weave more cloth than we can wear, etc. For those of us who are thriving, it feels good at the moment, but the folks who've just been laid off are probably feeling pretty unhappy, and I wouldn't be surprised if history decides "manifest destiny" was one of America's worst concepts. Stopping progress won't help - as
Dave Ebert pointed out, automation has lots of benefits besides reduced labor - but there's little point in building 50% production overcapacity. We Americans can now provide for
all our needs, and most of our reasonable material desires, with less than 40 hours labor per week. It'll soon be time to do just that.

2 Suggestion 1 is fine for Americans, who have over-production capacity, but it doesn't help the one third of the world's population who go to bed hungry each night.
Suggestion 2 is for everyone. We need either:
2.1 An international moratorium on immigration/emigration
or
2.2 To take down all boundaries and allow complete freedom of movement

Both these are pretty radical by current standards, so let me explain: Our problem is that anyone can leave any country, but we only have to admit people who we like into our own
country. As a result, desirable countries admit people who are well-able to create wealth, and undesirable countries have no way to stop desirable countries from enticing away wealth-creating people. So the wealthy countries get wealthier and the poorer countries get poorer. It seems to me that we have to level this playing field either by stopping all migration, so that undesirable countries keep their wealth-creators, or by allowing all migration, so desirable countries get their share of all types of people.

Both those alternatives are far out, and there are certainly many intermediate compromises. For example, we could negotiate around possibilities such as:
. Anyone wanting to move from one country to another must find someone of equivalent ability to move in the other direction.
. Whenever people marry across national boundaries, they go to live in the less-desirable country.

I'm thoroughly apprised of the totalitarian aspects of these alternatives and I don't like them, but I think they may be better for the world in the long term than the status quo.
However if you really don't like the totalitarian alternatives, pick 2.2 - open the gates, take down the walls, and give the border guards and immigration officials productive work to do, so we can get to a 32-hour workweek sooner.

Steve Bain, smbain@erols.com
Speaking from experience: Naturalized Canadian born in South Africa and living in Washington DC.
Opinions are my own, etc.

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
I like idea 1. I have tried to work that way for many years when I
worked for myself. I did not retire, but I cut back my paid working hours, did more volunteer work and took more vacation. I simply set rates to give me an income that would have been the same as the average for someone working typical 40 hour weeks. Life was good.

Now I work for someone else again. In the Southeast yet. Life is not as good as it was. My experience is that you would be hard pressed to find one willing to share the wealth with employees to the extent of reduced hours. Most companies are just not that enlightened. I look forward to the time when they will be, or I start working for myself again (we probably don't need to guess which will be first).

I had not thought about ideas 2.1 and 2.2. They seem reasonable, but that good old capitalistic "greed factor" probably makes idea 1 more
radical than ideas 2.1 and 2.2

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
I think that your suggestion to Americans (shorter work week) can be
applied for everyone. In highly industrialized countries, I believe that it is the only effective way to distribute the wealth; other countries can do other things, like land reform, state sponsored constructions, etc. But sticking to the issue at hand (Automation replacing people), my opinion is that the first thing we should do is to do a research/poll to find out the real numbers. Automation people (and I am one of them) say that automation creates more jobs than it takes away; non-automation people say differently. So we should have an independent research to determine the true facts and discuss from there. I personally believe that automation
eliminates more jobs than it creates. And it is only reasonable, since what we do is to have that once were done manually, to be done automatically. And I don't think that the re-placement/re-train can work very effectively
most of the time, because we need different people to do different things (I would certainly appreciate Mr. Sweeney's words on how that is done at PM). I believe that we have to face the fact that the work we do (automation) does cause people to lose their jobs, and at the rate technology is changing, these numbers (of people being replaced by automation) tend to grow. WE have to start looking for alternatives, like sorter work week, because the problem, I believe, is just starting.

Hevelton Araujo Junior
IHM Engenharia e Sistemas de Automação LTDA
hevelton@task.com.br

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]
I tend to disagree with a good portion of the above. The Industrial Revolution isn't just starting, it's been here through all of my
lifetime.

Innovation in any industrial process is likely to reduce the need for "dumb" labor. Can you imagine how demeaning, boring and dehumanizing a
job like filling the bottles in a Coca Cola plant would be for a human? It reminds me of having water buffalo walking in a circle tied to a yoke
for pumping water.

I agree that the best way to speak from fact rather than opinion is through a study. Perhaps the next student who write to the list could
take on the task for his or her thesis. I certainly don't have the time and resources, and wouldn't believe a government study on the subject. My opinion on the issue is that populations continue to grow. The only way that's possible is if enough food, water etc., is available to sustain them, and sufficient income available to the population to acquire those commodities. Is it "noble" work? Who knows. My job is to improve industrial processes. Some people consider that with less esteem than prostitution. I consider some professions with high regard, others with less. But I sleep well because my conscience is clear.

The personal opinion of:

Carl Ramer, Sr. Engineer
Controls & Protective Systems Design
EG&G Florida

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]

>>Carl Ramer wrote:
>>I tend to disagree with a good portion of the above. The Industrial
>>Revolution isn't just starting, it's been here through all of my lifetime.
>> <clip>

Industrial Revolution has been around long before any of us got here. But never in history have things (in general) changed as fast as we are seeing today. And, IMHO, it tends to change even faster. I agree that the enough basic resources
(food, water, etc) are the essentials for a future society. But you touched on an very important point, which is "sufficient income available to the population to acquire those commodities". Automation, IF IT DOES REALLY COST JOBS, causes the newly automated company to increase its quality and/or productivity and, thus, to increase its profits (some of this increase comming from the "income" of the workers
who lost their jobs). Imagine this being done all over the world, we are talking about more wealth concentration, making the "income" not sufficient for all the people. What, IMHO, has to be done is to find other ways to distribute the wealth in order to have a stable (at least in today's standards, which, IMHO, are very low) society. Someone has pointed out the education is the key that answers this problem. I personally agree with that.

Best Regards,

Hevelton Araujo Junior
IHM Engenharia e Sistemas de Automação LTDA
hevelton@task.com.br

PS.: Opinioes are my own, etc ...

[Originally posted 2/6/1998]
Hevelton Araujo Junior wrote:

>Automation, IF IT DOES REALLY COST JOBS, causes the
>newly automated company to increase its quality and/or productivity and,
>thus, to
>increase its profits (some of this increase comming from the "income" of the
>workers
>who lost their jobs).

Many assumptions in that statement, and if we accept them all, then you've described the kind of company that is trying to stay in business.
Any well run, reasonably moral company would also use some of the profits to expand the business and create more jobs. That's a fairly
classic model anyway.

>Imagine this being done all over the world, we are talking
>about more wealth concentration, making the "income" not sufficient for all
>the
>people.

Then the level of starvation would limit or reduce the population and create less demand for the products and services being provided by the
few who hold all the wealth. There has to be demand for any supply side producer to make money.

>What, IMHO, has to be done is to find other ways to distribute the wealth
>in order to have a stable (at least in today's standards, which, IMHO, are
>very low)
>society.

I think the USSR tried a little experiment along those lines a while back. That model didn't work too well, but there are alternatives for sure.

>Someone has pointed out the education is the key that answers this problem.
>I personally agree with that.

I get in trouble on a regular basis for saying that, but it's so basic that no argument can stand against it. Even if you happen to like
biblical adages, "teach a man to fish, don't give a man a fish" has been with us for a long time and is still valid. As was pointed out, the
rate of change in technology has created a demand for faster and more teaching, but most taxing authorities in the USA don't place a high enough priority on funding education. We get under educated people slammed into a technologically demanding workplace and they frequently become the first casualties when "machines" take over. Maybe we need to automate the teaching profession next. :-) Has anyone seen an advertisement for a PTC (Programmable Training Controller) yet.

Carl Ramer

[Originally posted 2/10/1998]
I think we all agree that "sacking" employees replaced by automation is an unfortunate byproduct of technical advancement. And it would be nice if all companies cross-trained employees instead.

Unfortunately, the "teach a man to fish..." adage doesn't work with people who don't want to learn how to fish.

Be useful or useless. It is their choice.

Gov't cannot prevent this. Carl, your point about the USSR is right on.

Darwin was right.

Cold? Yes. Cruel? Maybe.

That is the world that we live in.

Can we have advancement without competition?

Tell your children and your loved ones to pay attention and not take anything for granted.

Kevin Maguire

[Originally posted 2/11/1998]
Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:25:0, Kevin Maguire referenced Darwinism and Communism, and asked
"Can we have advancement without competition?"

Competition's good, Kevin. Maybe we wouldn't
be where we are without it. But one of the
characteristics of people is that we can
cooperate. Competition's good, cooperation's
better. Hence the existence of this list.

Steve Bain

Referencing "Darwinism" was predictable. Unfortunately, Darwin has become just a little obsolescent, and qualifies for some retraining!

In nature, 'arms races' occur between different species, but within a species (and after all, we presumably are discussing members of our species), other dynamics come into play.

Richard Dawkins wrote two excellent books on evolutionary theory, called "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Selfish Gene". In one of the two (sorry, I don't have them handy), he described a dynamic system that finds a resting place in what is called an 'evolutionary stable strategy', or ESS.

Imagine two strains of the same species who have propensities to pursue different strategies in replication. One is 'promiscuous', and the other is 'chaste'. The 'chaste' faction is very cautious about choosing a mate and invests a lot of time in doing so. Their progeny enjoy the benefit of receiving a relatively high level of care by well selected parents. Now introduce a 'promiscuous' member of the species, and that member has the possibility of producing a larger number of offspring, because it gets down to business much sooner, and gets more opportunities to pass down it's genes, including the genes that give it the propensity for promiscuousness.

Introducing the promiscuous strain will upset the balance that was achieved by the relatively 'chaste' strain. But the road to promiscuousness is not unending. At some point, it will no longer be a benefit to be promiscuous, especially once the whole population has gone over to being that strategy. The pendulum may swing back and forth a bit, but it will always hover around the point that is called the 'evolutionary stable strategy'.

With regards to the speed of technological advancement, there are factors keep it in check. I'm sure that you are all aware of this, having faced resistance to change. In the 'macro' view, this is the situation of a species that is teeter tottering back and forth over a pivotal stable strategy.

Why does it hurt? Because nature is not too concerned with the fortunes of any one individual. If a society pushes the envelope such that it is no longer serving the interests of the average man, then the pendulum WILL swing back towards the point where it WILL serve his/her interests. While that pendulum is swinging far away from the comfort level of some (or even most), then there will be pain.

Better than railing against Nature as we perceive her, we should concern ourselves with the abuse of power by the few. One poster asked the question 'how would unions feel about individual employees determining their own contracts in order to get guaranteed training?' While unions may have ostensibly been set up to benefit the interests of the workforce, the question that arises is: 'according to who?' As surely as an electron in a copper wire will fill the 'hole' created by the de-ionization of a neighboring copper atom, someone will set themselves up as the 'authority' to answer that question - usually with the betterment of their own interests being the end result.

(There is also an ESS involved in that dynamic too, with the interests of the 'leader' being weighed against the interests of the 'lead'.)

Engineers don't usually enter the field primarily from a quest for power or wealth. Not in the beginning at least. An interest in the sciences and the natural world is primarily motivated by the natural desire to gain mastery over a part of the physical world for the purpose of one's own survival. This is such a benevolent enterprise that a 'need' for rationalization merits examination.

At some point, each of us looked at the world we live in and asked ourselves how we can utilize what is available to us. If some people did not choose to do this, the question that we need to be asking is: why not? What is it that prevents them from following this very natural course of action?

I believe the answer is that we are being taught to accept and obey 'authority'. The state's monopoly on education is the cornerstone of this development. Once the state assumed the role of cradle-to-grave provider of not only education but security, then the responsibility for one's life no longer became the primary focus of the individual, but was entrusted to the state.

"Not in America" you ask? Look at the mountains of regulations, laws and the onerous tax code, all designed to poke and prod Americans into behaving in state-sanctioned ways. To the extent that the state endeavors to think for it's citizens, to that extent an essential element of our lives is taken away. That element is judgement. Where there is no freedom, there can be no reward - and no responsibilty.

The concept of achieving a static level of 'training' is foreign to me. I don't expect to ever stop learning. But I am self-taught, having taken this course in opposition to the culture and community that raised me.

Do I learn all that I can, whenever I can? I can't say that I do. At some point, I have to rest, and we all do so (I hope!)

So, when I think about displacing someone, I think that it's probably going to hurt them for a little while, but not in the long run. It may do them good overall. It's a challenge they face, but far be it from me to assume that they are not up to the challenge! Better to respect their ability, and expect that once they stop doing something that I can design and program a relatively stupid little PLC-controlled machine to do, they are off to bigger and better things in the real world out there.

Ascribing to your neighbors the qualities of a pre-programmed device, discounting their creativity and industriousness, then loading yourself up with guilt for sins against this strawman, is not my idea of morality.

Automation isn't man's best friend, just man's other best friend.

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]
> I believe that we have to face the fact that the work we do
> (automation)
> does cause people to lose their jobs, and at the rate technology is
> changing,
> these numbers (of people being replaced by automation) tend to grow.
> WE have
> to start looking for alternatives, like sorter work week, because the
> problem, I believe, is just starting.

While I certainly see your point, I think you discount the fact that those resources, human and capital, become available for another organization to employ. If an organization saves N dollars by employing automation, it will use those N dollars for investment in other ventures, or possibly to help finance the growth of the organization, thus creating *more* jobs.

Ultimately, the only true resource is the power of human intellect and creativity. A buggy-whip builder may be overtaken by technology; but by use of his mind and his creativity, he can become a PLC programmer. The human brain is far more flexible, I think, than to be permanently unemployable because a given type of work is no longer available.

[Originally posted 1/31/1998]
Hello Everybody,

I would like to point out following things:

1. If manual work was inefficient , slow and costly thing to do , how could you have thought about survival of organisation in changing global scenario of competition. The organisation would have sunk, taking all employees along with these five. Who would be blamed for this?, we as control
engineers , who did not provide economical solutions.

2. More important point is that organisation should have prepared these personnel for this eventuality , and trained them for doing something
better and much more value added jobs . In actuality automation should replace positions, not sack people .

Best of luck

Shashank goel

[Originally posted 1/30/1998]
Pardon my soap box, but you struck a nerve here...

The implication here is that the direct effect of automation is job loss. I think this is a misconception. It was not the machine that
caused the workers to be fired, but the employer. In this, as in all things in life, a person's actions are driven by their priorities. In this case the employer cared more about short term company profits than about whether his ex-employees would be able to survive without any
income.

Unfortunately, many employers still treat their employees as a commodity to be bought, sold and used as needed, instead of as fellow human beings. I feel an employer, by hiring a person, accepts a certain moral responsibility for that person's welfare. For me, this is not some "nice extra fluff," but the basic overhead for doing business.

This employer was not very bright. Just think how many devoted, happy workers he will have when they all realize that they could be canned on a moment's notice, just like throwing out the trash. I'm sure they will be very concerned about the quality of their work, too.

It's like when you were a kid: "You can have the puppy, but you have to feed him."

So, am I responsible for those workers being fired? Should I not sell that machine to company X because I know they will fire their workers?
Should I recycle because it's good for the environment? Should I not invest in tobacco stocks because it kills people? Like I said, it's a judgement call, isn't it? Sometimes you have to pay for your principles.

Tom Kirby
Richmond Automation Design, Inc.
804-262-6029
804-262-6421 FAX
tkirby@ricauto.com
www.ricauto.com

[Originally posted 2/2/1998]
Marc,
You have just been involved in a very difficult situation. But consider the following alternatives:
1. Someone else would have done the same if the contract went to another company,
2. A competitive food factory could have and may in the future do the same in order stay competitive.
3. the workers in that plant are competing with workers around the world who work for a few dollars a day. Unfortunately, world-wide competition is here to stay and it's very competitive.

For years I sold PLCs and other factory automation products and realized that the application of my products put people out of work. If I didn't sell them, someone else would and I would be out of a job. Not a nice
thought, but realistic.

For a small amount of comfort consider this: you did not put these people out of work. The food company did with their decision to purchaes the
equipment in the first place. They could have reassigned and/or re-trained these people for other jobs - assuming that jobs would be available.

So don't blame yourself. Just think of all the accountants put out of work by Lotus and Excel. Think of the travel agents who have been replaced by direct ticketing on the Web.

Wouldn't it be great if lawyers and politicians could be replaced in a similar fashion!

Joe Gaglio
Rochester Instrument Systems
255 N. Union St.
Rochester, NY 14605
(716)-238-4078

[Originally posted 2/2/1998]
Hi, All:

This is an important and sensitive issue.

This is especially relevant in smaller communities, like mine, in northwest BC. I am involved in a project whose justification is 'reduced manpower leading to lower cost xxxxx production'. Nothing else - savings are expected from more efficient use of energy, less wear and tear of production equipment, less motorized
vehicle repair, and so on.

I casually mentioned the name of this project, and was 'bush whacked' by a tradesman regarding 'job losses'. He ended his verbal tirade with the comment that Henry Ford had offered his men $5 a day so that they could be potential 'buyers'.

I had to tell him that Henry did not have to compete with Toyota and Hundai!

Its a tough issue for sure - but when management looks at cost per tonne to produce product xxx, and they compare across four of their own plants plus those of their competitors, you can bet the
farm that the high cost producer is not going to be around past the first market downturn!

It's not pretty, but it a fact of life in the '90s.

Rick.................

[Originally posted 2/2/1998]
In the early 1980's, we developed a computer controlled electrochemical
process that today would be called a light's out factory. It has run commercially since 1990. No new people were added to integrate it into an
existing facility. It didn't create employment, it runs so well that one of our customers using the technology wants to convert the control system to another vendor because the maintenance people know the other product so much better because they have to work on it all the time. When you are successful in creating a no maintenance, no people attention necessary
systems, it is very difficult to justify maintaining skill levels necessary to cope with the problem that might arise. Thank heaven for modems and the people that developed the system. They can diagnose and repair worldwide from one central source. This is a changing world. We have been at the future and see what's coming! People will have a different role in the automated production systems of the next millenium.

A previous plant wide system installation left 15 people reassigned (not "Fired" mind you).
First, the people would actually produce about 1 hour a day in their old position. The rest of the time was spent napping, reading, placing bets etc. (I saw or heard all of this over 2 years on site)
Second, their new positions required more attention so their employer actually got 8 hours of work for 8 hours of pay - seems fairer.
Third, Yes, it was a government job.

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
This is certainly the first time I can remember a thread like this being explored on this listserv.

Has anyone made the connection to Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.'s "Player Piano"?

John P.

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
Today, unemployment is the lowest its been in over a decade, despite
many advances in automation. I believe that automation creates more opportunities than it takes away.

For those that advance their skill sets, the ensuing opportunities are more rewarding than the more menial tasks that are being replaced by automation.

If a company decides not to automate so as to keep more people employed, then that company is at a disadvantage compared to its competitors. It can lose business, go out of business, or be acquired by its competitors. Each of these scenarios also will most likely lead to job layoffs. However, if a company gains a competitive advantage via automation, it may actually have to increase staff to handle an increased market share.

The business market and job market are today very dynamic. People have to adapt. Adapting can be difficult or even painful for some people; and ideally if more help existed for helping these people adapt, then you might not feel so guilty.

[Originally posted 1/29/1998] What about all the previous centuries, when we nerds were forced to exist outside of our cubicles, perhaps farming, fishing, or selling cardamom pods? We're just getting even!

Anyway, for an opposing view (I notice that most of these posts justify automation), please see the complete unabomber manifesto at:

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~mszydyk/unabomber/

;-) Willy Smith

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
May I suggest that yourself and your company are in a better position to appreciate the talents, skills and intellectual property of these people in
automating, testing and commissioning food processing systems.

Therefore you / your company is best placed to offer them a position which will allow you to use their resources in similar future undertaking.

thanks.

Can be reached at;
=S= (M) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
Tel : +60 (0)3 7051150
Fax : +60 (0)3 7051170

I speak for me, myself and I... sometimes I am talking to myself!

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
From yet another soapbox ...
The world is not going to stop automating processes. Because of the global drive for more, automation is inevitable and we must all prepare. Job training and ongoing re-training are extremely important. Companies need to be proactive in educating their workforce to deal with new skills. This helps employees feel more secure, LOYAL TO THEIR EMPLOYERS, and happy in their jobs/lives. Some will leave once they are educated, but you can't punish everyone (by not providing training) to prevent the few from leaving. A day or week's worth of downtime in
a plant probably costs more than a year's worth of education classes. Many of our students come to class angry and doubtful they can learn to use new technologies. It is a delight to see their faces light up as they write logic for a PLC or troubleshoot a field problem using a PC. Jobs are changing. The better prepared we are, the easier the transition will be and the more we will
be included in the change.

Education is the key

Allison Walker
intertec@peak.org

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
Allison Walker makes a great point...(some snips)

>Job training...helps employees feel more secure, LOYAL TO THEIR EMPLOYERS.
>Some will leave once they are educated, but you can't punish everyone

And some of those who leave will become your loyal customers at their new companies.


John Kowal
Account Manager
The Brady Company

Marketing o Advertising o Public relations
email: jkowal@bradyco.com N80 W12878 Fond du Lac Avenue
T: 414 255 0100 Menomonee Falls, WI 53051-4410
F: 414 255 3388

[Originally posted 2/4/1998]
>Allison Walker makes a great point...(some snips)
>
>>Job training...helps employees feel more secure, LOYAL TO THEIR EMPLOYERS.
>>Some will leave once they are educated, but you can't punish everyone
>
>And some of those who leave will become your loyal customers
>at their new companies.
>
And some will help your competitors beat you.

Notice how many football players score against their old club even when they are not 'goalscorers'??

thanks.

Can be reached at;
=S= (M) Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
Tel : +60 (0)3 7051150
Fax : +60 (0)3 7051170

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]
Apparently there are two messages that are really combining. Allison
Walker's message (to me ) says that if an employer pays for your training - you are valuable. The original message implied that if you
helped with the new technology stuff, you could be replaced. Shift the focus of these two mesages together and you have a message that says that if you are knowledgeable, you are valuable. If the originator of this subject thought that his injection of service cost these people their jobs, he could write each one a reference for their future job searches saying how well they performed. I work construction and install
and repair many devices that have been installed. Nothing is forever and maybe, just maybe, I can work this new avenue towards my own good.

[Originally posted 2/3/1998]
We also have had the problem of "excess" reliability in some systems... but the answer is not to get less reliable equipment but to retain skills using
simulation and off-line systems.

BTW... not retaining skills is not an option since even the most reliable system eventually fails and when it does your goose is cooked if you don't even know how to open the cover!

If MTBF gets too high MTTR can skyrocket if you don't watch out.

Randy Sweeney
Philip Morris R&D

[Originally posted 2/5/1998]
Hi,

Industry is subject to continuous change. All of which result in changes affecting employees. The acceptance of single employer for life is rapidly fading worldwide and this includes Japan. The wave of re-engineering exercises being conducting has led to more and more people being self employed.

Similarly the growing number of acquisitions invariably leads to a reduction in head count. There is a new class of industry emerging as a point of sale mass customised manufacturers whose products will be produced on demand to customer specified requirements. This move will be heavily dependant on automation and provide opportunities for self employment.

The point I am making is that when one door closes another opens and perhaps our educational systems should offer training in the skills
needed to develop and operate a business.


Grenville
miware@cis.co.za

[Originally posted 2/9/1998]
Michael Griffin wrote:
>
> With regards to automation replacing people, perhaps some of the
> people who think that this is a new problem might do well to remember Ned
> Ludd, a weaver who rebelled against power operated weaving machines in I
> believe the 18th century. But I suppose that Luddites never learn from history.
> However, no doubt the Indian members of this list could offer a bit
> of advice on what life is like in a country where very few people have been
> replaced by machines.
>
> The French economist Frederic Bastiat wrote a series of very well
> written articles in the 1840's which were later collected into a book called
> "Economic Fallacies" which you might find illuminating. In one story he
> invents a little tale about Robinson Crusoe marooned on his desert isle. One
> day Robinson Crusoe was walking down the beach, and came across some lumber
> which had washed up upon the beach. When he saw this, Crusoe rushed over to
> the wood, and threw it back into the sea. He did this because as the lumber
> was already cut and ready to be used, it would have deprived him of the
> employment of cutting it himself.
> The fallacy this illustrates is the assumption that work is an end
> in itself. Rather work is the cost we pay to get something that we want. If
> Robinson Crusoe had used the lumber he found on the beach, and used the time
> thus freed up to do something else, he would have had the benefit of having
> the wood, plus whatever else he was able to do in the time thus freed.
>
> The amount of work to be done in the world is not fixed, rather it
> is the resources we can employ to do this work which are limited. I am
> reminded that a century ago in Canada approximately 75 percent of the work
> force was employed in agriculture. Today it is around 6 percent. The result
> was not 70 percent unemployment; it was an abundance of automobiles,
> aircraft, electronics, and other wonderfull things which people are now
> available to produce.

While we are at it, let's have a moment of silence for those long gone blacksmiths who have been replaced by our machines (mills, lathes, etc.) over the past century plus. Please be aware though that there are some blacksmiths still doing custom work out there (artistic, custom, living history, etc.). Least anyone think these are dilettantes, I invite them
to come and bend iron along side of me this July in NW Louisana when it's 90+F and 90+% (an avocation of mine). The lessons to be learned in
metal displacement, cutting and heat treating might be of value to some who are not sufficiently founded in their craft (read profession if you must). Similiarly, a more than cursory examination of the history of the industrial revolution would reveal that displacements in labor, material and equipment have occurred regularly, been accepted and in
many cases forgotten. The concept that governments can long control anything seems totally at odds once again with these historical
antecedents and flies in the face of individualistic human endeavor.

As a software engineer, I shudder to think of having to walk into some of the appearant situations developing out there with inadequate
(none???) systems documentation. All too often a hired gun (my vocation) must walk bravely, some might say dumbly, into these and attempt to bring some order from chaos. I hope that unimagined horrors (this life or otherwise) await those who think a quick and dirty Visual Basic fix is economically and professionally sound. For an almost complete list of don'ts see http://www.jas.com - "Real programmers don't
write in BASIC. Actually, no programmers write in BASIC, after the age of 12."

In a more serious vein, I would appreciate any response relative to interest in network driven controllers similar to the Open Modular
Architecture Controllers (OMAC) as proposed by GM, Ford and Chrysler for the automotive industry.

[Originally posted 2/14/1998]
Hello to All,

Michael Griffin wrote:
>
> With regards to automation replacing people, perhaps some of the
> people who think that this is a new problem might do well to remember Ned
> Ludd, a weaver who rebelled against power operated weaving machines in I
> believe the 18th century. But I suppose that Luddites never learn from history.

It seems (not only to me) that now the problem has had new colors, but economical one. In the first place, it connect with an impact of technique on our culture. And changes are going on too quickly and deeply to predict all possible
after-effects.
There are a lot of various works on this topic. I am mostly aware of German papers. (But, as a matter of fact, Germany has very strong school of philosophers :-).
In spite of 'philosophy', it does not seem too dull and are excellent readable.

And, of course, poetry is more laconic...
Just as a digest:

"... the world on you depends"
la-la la-la-la "... end."

i.e., mostly, they write about our responsibility.

References:
1. Huning A. Philosophy of Technology and The Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. In: Durbin P.(ed.). Research in Philosophy & Technology. Vol. 2.
2. Lubbe H. Technisher und sozialer Wandel als
Orientierungsproblem. - "VDI-Berichte", 1979, Nr. 342 (Technical and Social Changes as a Problem of Orientation)
3. Ropohl G. Technik als GegenNatur. In: Natur als Gegenwelt., 1983 (Technique as an Opposition of Nature)
4. Adorno Th. Uber Technik und Humanismus...
5. Lenk H. Verantwortung in, fur, durch Technik...
(Responsibility in, for, via Technique )
6. Huning A. Ingenieurtatigkeit in ethische und
sozialer Verantwortung - "Zeitschrift fur
Vermessungswesen" Dec. 1985 (Engineering in ethic and social point of view)

E. Fromm, Heidegger, etc., etc., etc.

--
Vladimir E. Zyubin
mailto:zyubin@iae.nsk.su
Institute of Automation & Electrometry
Novosibirsk Russia

In many cases the people you are replacing are saved from jobs which are dangerous, boring, or otherwise unhealthy. It is true that those individuals are placed out of work, but in at least some cases they will find opportunities which are better than what they had before -- opportunities that they might not have been inclined to seek if they had not been 'pushed' out of their existing position.

Does the capitalist owner of the company owe these displaced workers anything ? Well, morally yes they probably should feel some motivation to retrain these workers, find them other jobs in the organization, or assist them with outside job searches, but thankfully we do not yet legislate most moral issues like this (just give the lawyers time). The hard fact is that employers will not take much effort to assist these displaced workers unless they perceive some advantage (measured in dollars on the bottom line) to do so. Those advantages DO exist in many cases -- a worker who has been in the factory for years must surely have learned a little something else about the operation than just which button to push to start his or her machine.

My company and I are busy engaged in selling robotic casting machines to anyone who will buy one (and lots of people want one when they see them) so I have spent some time think over this whole issue

1) Robots save factories, so indirectly they do save jobs

2) The war between Capital and Labour has finally been won, and Labour helped them do it!

3) Our society has to face up the fact that just because one does not possess Capital, it does not mean that one is not entitled to enjoy some of the benefits that all this Capital brings.

4) Our society would look very different if we measured our performance and paid ourselves in Human Happiness and not Money. Too often we equate the two. It must be axiomatic that all humans have equal right to Happiness- no-one deserves to have more happiness than another. It is not the factory owners responsibility to deal with the consequences of change- it is ours, for we are the society that creates change.

5) Engineers create for the joy of creation, in the same way that a composer or playwright creates- A complex machine/process is no less beautiful than a symphony (Although mostly only the creative team realise this!)

6)Humans have been obsessed with increasing their control over the environment since the first flint axe- Nothing we can say or do will do anything to slow the process- get out there and vote for the changes- thats what democracy is about

Phew! I'm worn out after that little brain dump.

I read through the replies posted to this article and agree with several of the sentiments. I actually got into this business (industrial automation/controls) because I saw a lot of small and medium manufacturing companies going out of business in the community where I was raised. My thought was that I could help small and medium manufacturing concerns remain competitive through "pockets of automation". I define pockets of automation as small automation projects to remove bottlenecks of production. These bottlenecks can consist of throughput, quality, and/or safety. My approach was the 80/20 solution: gain 80% improvement with 20% of the cost of a completely automated workcell.

I have grieved over the issues expressed in this article, namely the replacement of people with machines. I even hated NAFTA, but realized that it was a big marketing tool for me: if you don't automate, all these jobs are going to Mexico.

About 2 years ago, I picked up a 2nd hand book that is now 15 years old by Stuart Rosenfeld, "Competitive Manufacturing: New Strategies for Regional Development." Dr. Rosenfeld writes from the perspective of acedemia and suggests education and collaboration as means for achieving the objective of remaining competitive. Dr. Rosenfeld uses as one of his case studies the decade of automation projects that occurred at Steelcase Corporation in Athens, Alabama. The conclusion of that decade of activity was that it (the automation project) was more costly than was originally conceived, but that the company is in much better posture for having investing in the process. The thing that caught my attention the most, though, was that Steelcase removed their skilled workforce from the production of standard line office furniture and opened up a completely new line of custom office furniture, using these highly skilled craftsmen more effectively. The end result was that Steelcase, because of their automation, had not only kept their workforce, but had expanded it!

I grant that, sadly, this is not always the case. I get frustrated that several forces discourage corporate investment in capital improvements. Unless a project can be shown to be profitable within 2 years' time, it has no chance of survival. As a result, I have witnessed the closing of most of the clothing manufacturers in the Tennessee Valley area during a 5 year period.

But I am also noting something that gives me hope: as the textile industry in North Alabama and Tennessee is in decline, the automotive industry has already moved in. Not only do major automotive manufacturers reside in the area, but several contract manufacturers of automotive parts have sprung up in these hills. I begin to see that we, as Americans, are adaptable.

I do not like to see employees replaced by machines, but I do see industrial automation as helpful to increase throughput, improve quality, and enhance safety.

It is natural to feel bad but it is Capitalism. Like one of the earlier comments said in European countries the training is much more in depth but you are obligated to be loyal, if one leaves their job in a European country that may be it, they may not get hired again anywhere. In the US, however, you have your freedom and you have to pay for it also (no free lunch). Also you have to remember there are many situations where laborers may have an attitude where they don't want to learn and they have a "you can't fire me attitude", so in some cases this is no fault but their own.

And what were those five people doing, anyway? Was it something creative and useful that only a human being could do? Apparantly not. Do we really want to waste a person's life doing a menial task which could be automated? I remember talking to an automation vendor recently who tried to install some automation gear in a 24 hour manned substation which would have enabled it to go unmanned. The local union refused to help them in any way. This vendor had to bring in electricians from some distance away to do the work and armed guards to defend the installation from attack. I have no sympathy for such luddites. None. The act of performing a repetitive, unintelligent, and uncreative task is something to be shunned and avoided wherever economically feasible. You did the right thing.

Fortunately, many of these consequences could be ameliorated by automated countermeasures that offset the excesses. Unfortunately, it usually takes a crisis to institute fundamental reform, though the looming economic meltdown stemming from the mounting federal debt offers just such an opportunity. Automation is destroying jobs faster than it can replace them. The benefits of the increased productivity go 100% to the owners of the machines, and none to the workers displaced. What are the consequences of this? What will happen if this trend continues and accelerates to include white collar jobs, and even jobs currently handled by PhDs?

>What will happen if this trend continues and accelerates to include white collar jobs, and even jobs currently handled by PhDs?

Haven't you been looking around? It's happening right now.

I mean, is there anything truly redeeming about taking messages for someone else? Is there anything worthwhile about plotting curves on Smith charts when programs like SPICE can be used to more completely and accurately model an amplifier? Is there something about working out finite element analysis manually that makes it better than doing it on computer?

Some of these things used to be PHD material. No more. I call that an improvement.

This is a necessary evil of advancement, but hopefully those workers will move on to something better. Don’t forget about the telephone operators that were replaced by automated phone switches decades ago. At the time, no one wanted to fire the operators, but think about life today if every call you made still had to go through a person!

I have been in this business for 24 years. Only once did I see anything similar. It was an auto-welder that did a job faster and better with less rework than 5 welders. Four welders were eventually moved to other areas in the plant.

Most of the time workers are moved rather than sacked. Of course the first economic downturn and usually at least some may go at that time.

Considerations:
1. As a PLC programmer you will be unemployed a lot. You will have to relocate a lot(unless you work for a big company)
2. This country has to compete with the Japanese who are very automated.
3. We could adopt policies like India but then many of us would starve.
4. It is the responsibility of the management of the company that hired you to inform it's workers of future layoffs and train for other jobs. Usually if a company has the money to automate they have predicted a future of growth that involves keeping and moving to other areas the good employees. Lousy employees should have to go looking.
5. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the workers to see the handwriting on the wall. There are no guarantees in this life. Chances are that they found work somewhere else as the type of workers you described make low wages anyway and can usually find a job making that wage doing just about anything.
6. As a PLC programmer myself I have been unemployed may times. Whenever there are layoffs contract engineers are the first to go. While I am sypathetic to anyone that loses their job. The alternative to automation to me seems much worse.

frank

Frank Mitchell <femitchell@earthlink.net> wrote :

>an auto-welder that did a job faster and better with less
>rework than 5 welders. Four welders were eventually moved
>to other areas in the plant.

Jim Pinto responds :

Think about this - in some cases, new technology is replacing old with a 10:1 and even 100:1 ratio.
In some cases, it eliminates the need for old procedures and mechanisms.

How many typewriter-repair mechanics are there in the world today? And where (in the world) are they?

Frank continues :
>As a PLC programmer you will be unemployed a lot.

Jim :
New techniques are making PLCs and PLC-programming
into antiques - equivalent to typewriters sooner or later. PLC programming (relay-ladder-logic) was developed to assist electricians to program "programmable-logic-controllers" - in turn developed to replace relays. If PLC programmers think they are better off than
"typewriter mechanics" they are simply kidding themselves.

Frank continues :

>It is the responsibility of the management of the company that hired
>you to inform it's workers of future layoffs and train for other jobs.

Jim :
Don't expect management to "inform" you. They are simply
to busy to do any more than protect themselves in a fast-changing
business environment.

Frank :
>Ultimately it is the responsibility of the workers to see the
>handwriting on the wall. There are no guarantees in this life.

Jim :
Right on, Frank !

My advice to PLC programmers everywhere :

1/ Don't wait to be "informed" by an ill-informed
hierarchy in your declining company. Become pro-active!

2/ Upgrade your knowledge - learn C++, Java, PERL, LINUX and the latest programming tools. Pick up a teach-yourself book, and sit down to learn.

3/ Look for work in a growing business - one that needs your skills, knowledge and talents in logic & programming - web-development, eBiz applications, wireless apps, computer graphics, digital animation.

Feel free to email me with your background and
objectives. I'll do my best to advise.

Cheers:
jim
----------/
Jim Pinto
email : jim@jimpinto.com
web: www.JimPinto.com
San Diego, CA., USA
----------/

Jim,
I have to add my comments here: I have been programming PLC's for 10 years now (geez, has it been that long?!?). I got my degree in Robotics and Automated Systems Technology in 1991. My instructor at the school would tell us from time to time that RLL was going the way of the dinosaur. Within 3 or 4 years, nobody would be using Ladder Logic anymore...

4 or 5 years ago, with the advent of the soft plc's, I again heard the prediction of the demise of the PLC. It wouldn't be but a few years, we
were all told, and PLC's would be extinct, and RLL with it.

And yet, here I sit, day after day, reading the A-list, er, I mean, programming RLL. We are in process of launching a new product line. I
will be doing all of the controls for several machines. Guess what the primary control system is. AB SLC 5/04. Programmed in RLL. Everything
else is HMI, drives, etc. All the action is in the PLC.

I will possibly begin to harken to the call of the demise of PLC's when there is something that can fill the niche. PC's don't do real time or
stability under the current OS system. Even Linux is heavily modified to do real time. (ie. RTLinux). The I/O capabilities of PC's are limited compared to PLC's. I agree that there are options, and using various bus protocols, you can build a respectable I/O system. However, there are times when sticking a simple I/O card into the rack is the right thing.

I just don't see anything that exists that can displace PLC's, given price etc (such as Automation Direct)

Per your other item regarding learning Linux, Java, etc. I would hope that this is obvious to most. I am doing the Java thing now, and will be
setting up a linux server this weekend (I hope!)

Thanks!

--Joe Jansen

Joe Jansen <JoeJansen@kemet.com> commented :

>I just don't see anything that exists that can displace
>PLC's, given price etc

Jim Pinto responds :

Yes, PLC's will continue, alongside relays, contactors and pumps. But, the pay for programming PLC's will continue to decline. Just like the pay for servicing typewriters (which, as Willy Smith has suggested, continue to thrive in third-world countries).

Joe :
>Per your other item regarding learning Linux, Java, etc.
>I would hope that this is obvious to most.
>I am doing the Java thing now, and will be
>setting up a linux server this weekend.

Jim :

Hooray !

Cheers:
jim
----------/
Jim Pinto
email : jim@jimpinto.com
web: www.JimPinto.com
San Diego, CA., USA
----------/

As other have noted, PLC:s will continue to exist, but they will be replaced at some places where they are used today with other forms of computers (PC:s etc.) at least (as a start) where reliability and real-time demands are lower.

That don't necesarily mean RLL as a programming language will dissapear, actually I think it will move to the new controllers and continue to exist there. Someone still have to program the controller for a while forward, regardless of if it that controller is a PLC or some other computer. And when you want to program a
controller with some kind of logic you can do that in a number of ways (RLL, FBD, boolean expression, truth-table and probably some other) but they are all convertable to each other (at least to some degree) and whatever format you use is more or less up to you.

/Johan Bengtsson

----------------------------------------
P&L, Innovation in training
Box 252, S-281 23 H{ssleholm SWEDEN
Tel: +46 451 49 460, Fax: +46 451 89 833
E-mail: johan.bengtsson@pol.se
Internet: http://www.pol.se/

I've said this before. So here goes again.

There are two trends in automation and controls staffing.

The first is that the "technicians" are becoming lower and lower level employees, because devices are becoming and, more importantly, are
_perceived_ by managers to be becoming smarter and more equipped with self-diagnostics. This is bad news for people who think of themselves as
instrument techs, and who get paid premium wages for those skills.

Along the same lines, instrument engineers are being replaced by better educated techs. This is the "career path" for techs to avoid being shoved
down into the maintenance pool. This means that people who only think of themselves as instrument engineers are time-limited in the job pool.

The other trend is the need for people who clearly understand the processes found on the factory floor, and how they relate to the business trends and business requirements of the company. In other words, people who not only
understand process but also eat drink and breathe MES. If you are that kind of person, most headhunters want to talk to you about making a whole lot of money.

Along with this trend, and dovetailing with the first one, is the growth of contract engineering and super-technician services. While a plant cannot justify a Senior Analyzer Tech on staff, a consulting Analyzer Tech or Engineer can be just the thing to bail out those jumped up techs who are replacing plant instrument engineers, or the maintenance guy who works on analyzers on Tuesday and Thursday, but fixes the airconditioning on MW & F.

MHO.

Walt Boyes

---------------------------------------------
Walt Boyes -- MarketingPractice Consultants
walt@waltboyes.com
21118 SE 278th Place - Maple Valley, WA 98038
253-709-5046 cell 425-432-8262 home office
fax:801-749-7142 ICQ: 59435534

> There are two trends in automation and controls staffing.

> The first is that the "technicians" are becoming lower and lower level employees, because devices are becoming and, more importantly, are _perceived_ by managers to be becoming smarter and more equipped with self-diagnostics. This is bad news for people who think of themselves as instrument techs, and who get paid premium wages for those skills.

...Unless you can show how the complexity makes a job more difficult than before. For example: It used to be that one could diagnose ignition system problems in cars. No longer. Shade tree mechanics (and a lot of professional ones too) are often faced with shot-gunning parts in and out to diagnose a problem. This is not problem solving, this is taking random pot-shots and never knowing just what caused the problem.

> The other trend is the need for people who clearly understand the processes found on the factory floor, and how they relate to the business trends and business requirements of the company. In other words, people who not only understand process but also eat drink and breathe MES. If you are that kind of person, most headhunters want to talk to you about making a whole lot of money.

Sadly, this level of business/technical integration is all too rare in the management I've had the misfortune of witnessing. There are too many BS artists and upper management has no way of knowing who is full of themself and who really knows what's going on.

> Along with this trend, and dovetailing with the first one, is the growth of contract engineering and super-technician services. While a plant cannot justify a Senior Analyzer Tech on staff, a consulting Analyzer Tech or Engineer can be just the thing to bail out those jumped up techs who are replacing plant instrument engineers, or the maintenance guy who works on analyzers on Tuesday and Thursday, but fixes the airconditioning on MW & F.

This works until the systems get so complex or expensive that simple substitution efforts don't work any more. Intimate knowledge of "where things are" and "what's in the middle" and "how it works together" are worth the extra money for keeping a full time person on staff. There are very few generic assembly lines or industrial processes and many many more custom built, one or two of a kind installations.

The bottom line: As automation replaces more and more direct manufacturing jobs, there is no way anyone will be able to do away with the instrument technician or engineer. Doing so will result in a shortage of people to work on such things.

Of course, there is a shortage of trained and qualified mechanics who can do a reasonable job working on my car or truck. It may not be healthy, but it may also be where we're going...

int main(y=random value)
/*The following are random thoughts. links may be vague or missing */

As processes become more complex, as we become more aware of environment issues and we realise that the kind of accuracy and precision and
emotionless work demanded by the industry is beyond human scope on a continous basis, we accept automation as a remedy.

And every bit and piece of technology that we have assimilated since dawn of human race is if you philosophically think a part of automation.
For example, The wheel is the automation of walking.

Automation in the end is supposed to do a task to precision and once you have automated then manpower requirement will be rationalized.
What society needs to do is to distribute the benefits of automation by way of some social security schemes. With increasing population and longer life expectncies, naturally the question that arises is what these people are going to do. Society needs to promote art, education, sports and research as the primary means of mass employment.

The very reason that human kind invented wheel or fire and made bows and arrows were to enjoy the luxury of time, enjoy benefits of warmth and
cooked food that were hitherto unknown, enjoy the safety of not being close to the animals that humans preyed. The same principles also apply today, automation is to give humans the luxury of more time for other activities, reduce the proximity to dangerous and toxic chemicals and so on as already highlighted in previous articles.
Its basic purpose is not to replace human beings, but only augment their skills and improve the quality of human life.

Return 0;

Anand

>Jim Pinto responds :
>
>How many typewriter-repair mechanics are there in the
>world today? And where (in the world) are they?

Lots. I bet you haven't visited many third-world countries lately; the typewriter still has a lot of advantages when the infrastructure can't even supply power regularly!

Regards,

Willy Smith
Numatics, Inc.
Costa Rica

They are now called network administators.

Larry

I programmed PLCs for well over 30 years and the only time I was un-employed was in a very bad "slump" for the entire economy... I found it very easy to stay working... And that's the secret! Be willing to WORK!!

I've heard so much whining about being out of work or working yourself out of a job that I feel like up-chucking!!

Instead of complaining, try working...

Walt :

Excellent treatise on industrial automation staffing!

Shoukd be published in a textbook!

Cheers:
jim
----------/
Jim Pinto
email : jim@jimpinto.com
web: www.JimPinto.com
San Diego, CA., USA
----------/

I'll preface this by informing you that I am one of those "jumped up techs"
mentioned earlier.

If someone has made these points already I apologize for repeating, but it
seems to me that this thread has overlooked some of the most important and
valuable reasons for using PLC/ladder logic versus a PC & PERL, PYTHON, C,
C++, VB, Delphi, JAVA, Pascal, Fortran or any other PC programming
languages. No need to address reliability of the OS most often used on PC's.

I'm talking about real time, real world scenarios. I can't even begin to
count the number of times I have found and fixed a program bug or
countermeasured a new problem WHILE THE EQUIPMENT IS RUNNING. It's almost
never necessary to stop a ladder application to edit it. You NEVER have to
experience the oft' repeated procedure of programmer of other languages -
stop the application, replace the old files with the new one (or more) you
just compiled on a separate development box, and restart it.

VB (as much as I hate M$) certainly has a good (the best?) development
environment for running and monitoring a program during the debugging
process. But it isn't remotely comparable to the "online Edit" experience
with a PLC.

If your company's production line controlled by software written in C or VB
is right now, right in front of your Maintenance Engineer's eyes,
experiencing a simple but crippling bug, what will he do? Is he going to
view the source code as it is running NOW and pinpoint the bug within a
minute? Will he have a fix for it up and running the next minute? No
way!! Even if he's the highest performing, most intelligent Maintenance
Engineer on the planet and actually knows C & VB and how to compile a
kernel - even if he wrote the program - he will be lucky to have fetched
his laptop in the time that he could have fixed the problem and sat down
for a cup of coffee. Really, how often is a PC with development software
other than ladder found permanently attached to production equipment or
very near to it?

I attempted to write a comparison of how software bugs other than ladder
logic are often handled, but responses range so widely (from fair to
completely unacceptable - see M$) that it would be like Motor Trend writing
a HEAD-TO-HEAD performance review of a Viper -vs- my John Deere
mower. When I program systems integrating both (and require me to debug
both) the PLC problems can be fixed shortly after they appear and I end up
adapting the PLC to the PC whenever possible for the sake of development
efficiency. Especially after put in use but still buggy, PC app changes
are patches developed during production and installed at breaks or
weekends. What would take minutes or hours with online editing in ladder,
instead takes days or weeks depending on equipment access.

SOME Advantages of ladder:
1. Real-time monitoring of the entire source code
2. Real-time editing off RUNNING programs.
3. Fast troubleshooting
4. No need to recompile/ reboot, or re-anything short unless you hardware
needs changed.
5. Simplicity/reduced learning curve enables larger selection of people to
learn it.
6. One of many technologies that enables a tech to do today what yesterday
required an engineer.
7. The more people who can understand technologies, the more technologies
can be selected, implemented and supported. The more they're used, the
less they cost, and used even more. Within limits, the vast selection of
easily understood (though amazingly complex) technologies (should, if
applied with justification and well applied) improves quality, reduces cost
to produce, and on.
7. Frees experts from day-to-day problems and be utilized more effectively.
8. Larger number of programmers/troubleshooters and debuggers means more
ideas and more problems solved. (OK, depending on mgmt, it can mean more
problems created too.)
9. Mgmnt perception of simple equipment adaptability enables more
agressive approach to market. New products are being brought to market
faster and at less cost than ever. One factor in that is
10. Did I mention ONLINE EDITING !?!?!?

Dale,

You make excellent points. In my opinion they comprise the primary requirements of of an industrial control system (i.e. runtime monitoring, modification, etc.). Traditional software debugging tools/techniques such as break points, single stepping of instructions, etc. are at best useless and at worst dangerous in an industrial application. If you deploy a program that is controlling a machine or process, any debugging tool/technique must allow the program to continue controlling the machine or process during the debugging process. A break point may halt the program but the machine or process will carry on it's merry way, potentially causing damage to material, equipment, and personnel.

I agree that most all PLC/Ladder systems provide a development and maintenance environment that meets these needs and that most electricians
know how to read a ladder diagram.

I disagree that a ladder diagram is the only or most effective way of of providing the required development and maintenance environment. As
everyone should already know, software doesn't wear out; it gets more reliable over time. Normally physical components such as motors,
switches, sensors, or electronics fail and produce symptoms elsewhere in the system. Consequently, the debugging process entails tracing the connections from the symptom to the point of failure. This does not require examination of the software innards. In most all cases where a technician is examining source code (LADDER, C, VB, ..) he is doing so to find these connections and has very little concern for the
algorithm being implemented. In my opinion this is very time consuming and inefficient.

A better approach would be to provide proper diagnostic tools so that someone could monitor a working system, enable/disable functional blocks,
force signals to specific values, and make any necessary program changes. The technician would follow connections or obtain more documentation by
clicking corresponding areas of diagnostic screens.

Having said that, I recognize that any development/maintenance environment, no matter how good it is, will at a minimum have to support a relay ladders. If not there will be resistance to change. The really interesting thing about this is that more resistance comes from engineers
than from technicians and electricians. It makes me wonder who really has problems understanding and learning something new.

Just in case I wrote too much an obscured the good point you make, they are in your words:

> SOME Advantages of ladder:
> 1. Real-time monitoring of the entire source code
> 2. Real-time editing off RUNNING programs.
> 3. Fast troubleshooting
> 4. No need to recompile/ reboot, or re-anything short unless you hardware
> needs changed.
> 5. Simplicity/reduced learning curve enables larger selection of people to
> learn it.
> 6. One of many technologies that enables a tech to do today what yesterday
> required an engineer.
> 7. The more people who can understand technologies, the more technologies
> can be selected, implemented and supported. The more they're used, the
> less they cost, and used even more. Within limits, the vast selection of
> easily understood (though amazingly complex) technologies (should, if
> applied with justification and well applied) improves quality, reduces cost
> to produce, and on.
> 7. Frees experts from day-to-day problems and be utilized more effectively.
> 8. Larger number of programmers/troubleshooters and debuggers means more
> ideas and more problems solved. (OK, depending on mgmt, it can mean more
> problems created too.)
> 9. Mgmnt perception of simple equipment adaptability enables more
> agressive approach to market. New products are being brought to market
> faster and at less cost than ever. One factor in that is
> 10. Did I mention ONLINE EDITING !?!?!?

The phrase "SOME Advantages of ladder:" could have just as easily been "Some Requirements of an Industrial Software Development and Maintenance
Environment". I would also add "Online Editing" to your list :).

Rick Jafrate
Mitek

Rick Jafrate wrote,

>Your make excellent points.

Thanks, you too. the the following:
>In my opinion they comprise the primary
>requirements of of an industrial control system (i.e. runtime monitoring,
>modification, etc.). Traditional software debugging tools/techniques
>such as break points, single stepping of instructions, etc. are at best
>useless and at worst dangerous in an industrial application. If you
>deploy a program that is controlling a machine or process, any debugging
>tool/technique must allow the program to continue controlling the machine
>or process during the debugging process. A break point may halt the
>program but the machine or process will carry on it's merry way,
>potentially causing damage to material, equipment, and personnel.
>
>I agree that most all PLC/Ladder systems provide a development and
>maintenance environment that meets these needs and that most electricians
>know how to read a ladder diagram.

I both agree and disagree with you on the next part. Comments follow.

>I disagree that a ladder diagram is the only or most effective way of
>of providing the required development and maintenance environment. As
>everyone should already know, software doesn't wear out; it gets more
>reliable over time. Normally physical components such as motors,
>switches, sensors, or electronics fail and produce symptoms elsewhere
>in the system.

Some PLC programs tend to be left as-is for years once they are debugged. Others are very frequently changed, and the changes are not
always made by engineers. In my experience, the following are some factors which result in frequent program modification:
1. Product changes require equipment modification. (Product lifecycles are shortening and equipment is often asked to handle multiple products, some of which require very extensive hardware/software changes to incorporate)
2. Safety, reliability/efficiency, & quality issues are counter-measured at the equipment.
3. Improvement to interface with production associates and operators.
4. Response to production associate suggestions.

Honda has strongly embraced a philosophy to "empower" the average Production and Maintenance associate. As a result, if a system isn't perfect, somebody WILL have an idea to improve it and those ideas are often tried. I liken it to the advantages of Open Source Software.
With respect to ladder programming, engineers are sometimes consulted depending upon the skill level of the maint assoc making the
change and the difficulty of the change. Usually they work together and with their Team Leaders and Coordinators to do it themselves. With our VB
apps, THIS NEVER happens and changes are ONLY made by engineering or IT.
Frankly, I love it when the individual with an idea or countermeasure can also implement. I wish I could get the maint associates to be more creative and independent than they are. They do not understand VB thus have fewer ideas and they can never implement them.

>Consequently, the debugging process entails tracing the
>connections from the symptom to the point of failure. This does not
>require examination of the software innards. In most all cases where
>a technician is examining source code (LADDER, C, VB, ..) he is doing
>so to find these connections and has very little concern for the
>algorithm being implemented. In my opinion this is very time
>consuming and inefficient.
>A better approach would be to provide proper diagnostic tools so that
>someone could monitor a working system, enable/disable functional blocks,
>force signals to specific values, and make any necessary program changes.
>The technician would follow connections or obtain more documentation by
>clicking corresponding areas of diagnostic screens.

This really depends on the level of complexity of a given system and it's integration with other system. Take Honda's "Multi-mount" for example,
which installs the engine and front and rear suspensions simultaneously, automatically, in about 45 seconds. (linespeed 50 sec/car.) To further complicate the issue, it changes model jigs without losing a beat, thus giving the ability to build a Civic one minute and an Acura CL the next with no manual operations or time lost, assuming all goes as expected. We integrate 6 independant systems, each with a VERY large IO count to accomplish this.

To diagnose this system without ladder is an impossible concept. In the last year we tried to eliminate the need to go to the
ladder for many common functions, which could be done, but a fascinating lesson was learned in the process: Diagnostic systems are complicated to
design and implement and for more complicated processes, such as providing indication of the limiting condition for a step, they are especially
difficult to justify. The main factoring which destroys the economics of this is that I have added another system to be maintained. EVEN WORSE, if it is not maintain, it will SLOW the diagnosis process and result in MORE DOWNTIME.

Essentially, if a program is structured to facilitate fast isolation of a limiting condition, the same result is accomplished at
little to no cost. I can't see a benefit in extensive diagnostics to replace the need to look at ladder, other than in simple or unchanging systems.

Someone in the computer science field (I think it was Nikolas Wirth) once said something to the effect that programs are written for people to
read, not for computers. This is a simple idea which many people have difficulty understanding. Once you grasp the concept though, it changes your
point of view on what a good program looks like.


**********************
Michael Griffin
London, Ont. Canada
**********************

Along those lines, Donald Knuth wrote LaTex, which is like a HyperText language that allows you to embed documentation alongside code. One
compile would yield an executable image, plus a document that describes the executable image.

One of the original goals of CASE tools was to have your documentation and code in the same container. You update your documentation and code at the same time.

This concept shows up in quite a few control system tools, but for some reason the computer language people (VB-Basic, Java, C, C++, C