Working From Home...

[Donal]

There are sites for that where you can make good money....and you can do it from home!

Ya, but when one of your subscribers sees you in real life, it leads to awkward conversations

 

[3point14]

There are sites for that where you can make good money....and you can do it from home!

Yet another elitist role.

 

[plague311]

Ya, but when one of your subscribers sees you in real life, it leads to awkward conversations

Yeah, I usually just wink and give the finger guns....er I mean. That's what I've heard people do when that happens.

Yet another elitist role.

Well, depending on if you're the trickled upon or the trickler but yeah I suppose both get to work from home. Really tough to do it over a teams meeting.

 

[jeremyp]

Yeah, I usually just wink and give the finger guns....er I mean. That's what I've heard people do when that happens.



Well, depending on if you're the trickled upon or the trickler but yeah I suppose both get to work from home.

Only if you live together or somebody has an unusually strong stream.

Really tough to do it over a teams meeting.

Saw a video on YouTube recently which was a recording of a Teams conference. The person in the upper left panel sat down and started unbuckling his trousers. It went blurry after that, so I don't know what happened next. But the video was entitled "how to lose your job in 30 seconds".

 

[plague311]

Saw a video on YouTube recently which was a recording of a Teams conference. The person in the upper left panel sat down and started unbuckling his trousers. It went blurry after that, so I don't know what happened next. But the video was entitled "how to lose your job in 30 seconds".

Had a buddy that worked from home and was getting ready to get on a teams meeting. Didn't know his camera was on and had just got out of the shower. Was changing in plain view of the camera and was told after he put his clothes on to bring his laptop into the office and pick up any items he had at his office desk. I have no idea why people even risk it.

At my job I ordered my work computer and specifically got one without a camera. My justification is no one needs to see me during meetings. It adds nothing, my looks aren't relevant and I don't even want to see the other people. I never have to worry about showing up on a conference call at all, let alone in the nude.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Had a buddy that worked from home and was getting ready to get on a teams meeting. Didn't know his camera was on and had just got out of the shower. Was changing in plain view of the camera and was told after he put his clothes on to bring his laptop into the office and pick up any items he had at his office desk. I have no idea why people even risk it.

At my job I ordered my work computer and specifically got one without a camera. My justification is no one needs to see me during meetings. It adds nothing, my looks aren't relevant and I don't even want to see the other people. I never have to worry about showing up on a conference call at all, let alone in the nude.

Some of us are required to be on camera in meetings. It sucks. But I'm heavily paranoid so I make sure the laptop is closed when I'm not on camera. And I don't trust "mute" buttons -- I never said anything aloud in a call unless I want it to be heard.

 

[plague311]

Some of us are required to be on camera in meetings. It sucks.

Now that you mention it, I believe our department head said that was a requirement for them as well. That does suck. Us plebs aren't held to the same standard, thankfully.

But I'm heavily paranoid so I make sure the laptop is closed when I'm not on camera. And I don't trust "mute" buttons -- I never said anything aloud in a call unless I want it to be heard.

Preaching to the choir there, my friend. I have a headset that auto-mutes when the microphone is in the up position and I mute my mic through whatever program I'm using.

You've seen the way I talk here. There's absolutely no difference in the way I talk in person. Me not having a mute button in the mute position would end in a quick termination I'd think.

 

[The Atheist]

Now tell me, if there has been such a drop in productivity, why have we not seen widespread recessions? In fact, most national economies are in very good health.

Utterly ridiculous - the impact is small in the overall economy and suggesting a recession would be the outcome of maybe 5% of people reducing productivity by 10-15% shows a total lack of understand of economics and arithmetic.

The idea that WFH bans are driven by office space is even dumber - almost no companies own the real estate they occupy and if they could reduce rent by 80% they'd jump on it.

Not all companies have decided against work from home, though. You are making blanket statements as if all companies in all industries are experiencing the same thing, and making the same decision. My own employer has seen the opposite of what you are claiming: our productivity is up, and we're saving money by having people work from home when possible. I'm certain my company is not unique in this.

There will always be outliers, and a good example is accounting firms. I'm sure they could all work from home and retain productivity.

So, I guess the whole "elitism" thing is just a red herring. You think it sounds good but don't actually endorse it as a good argument.

It's not any part of an argument against WFH, it's specifically designed to raise the hackles of the paper-pushing-public-servant-twat that wants to work from home.

Worked.

That said, those very paper-pushing WFH introverts on their high horse of how clever they are reducing CO2 emissions never once consider the poor saps that can't do it.

The best news of all is, it is exactly those WFH jobs that are most-easily done by AI, so with any luck, they'll work from home until they're superseded by a machine.

Nevertheless, you are still opposed to WFH in general, because you think it negatively affects productivity. Fair enough, but it seems like it's worthwhile to run the experiment. To the extent that it's bad for productivity, firms will phase it out. To the extent that it isn't, they won't.

That's exactly what's happening - and it seems to me that the majority of companies have figured it's not working for them.

There are definitely potential upsides to work from home. There are also potential downsides. Over time we should find a new equilibrium, part of which will include innovative strategies to get the most out of the upsides and mitigate the downsides.

As long as the potential downside includes the mental health of the workers, that's fine. My opinion is that people are better off in a work environment than living a hermit lifestyle, and that's where WFH leads.

Why did you lead with the elitism then?

Makes it more fun.

Why didn't you start with a claim about productivity and growth, about which we could have a sensible discussion, instead of using an emotive and obviously silly argument?

We appear to be doing just that. If you have something to add, be my guest.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There will always be outliers, and a good example is accounting firms. I'm sure they could all work from home and retain productivity.

Ah, you've moved from the blanket absolute "working from home is bad for companies" to "not all companies". Now that you've managed that, let's define "outliers": I think in order to call some companies "outliers" you need to prove that they are the minority. Do you have any data to flavor your assertions? I think we'd need number of companies that favor WFH and the number of companies that don't. You can break it down by company size, industry, and location later.

 

[plague311]

The best news of all is, it is exactly those WFH jobs that are most-easily done by AI, so with any luck, they'll work from home until they're superseded by a machine.

Hate to be the guy to tell you but warehouse jobs have been being replaced by machines for a long time. Look up Amazon warehouse robots. Your argument doesn't even make any sense. You said the people you're oh so concerned about are uneducated, can't speak the language, etc. but those jobs are the ones that will be replaced first. Delivery drivers will be out the door within 10-15 years. Warehouse jobs are already on the way out. Grocery store clerks are being replaced by self-checkout, the list goes on and on.

That's exactly what's happening - and it seems to me that the majority of companies have figured it's not working for them.

Baseless assertion.

As long as the potential downside includes the mental health of the workers, that's fine. My opinion is that people are better off in a work environment than living a hermit lifestyle, and that's where WFH leads.

Yeah, the mental health of people is your concern. Sure, sure. Pull the other one.

Some people prefer not to interact with others. Some people can't because of social anxiety. Quit acting like you give a **** about mental health. You're just jumping from bull **** argument to bull **** argument as they get whack-a-mole'd.

Makes it more fun.

The literal definition of trolling. "I did it to rile people up because it makes me feel better about myself to piss people off. I can't get attention from reasoned, intelligent arguments so trolling gives me the attention I crave and need".

Yeah, you're definitely worth engaging in good faith.

We appear to be doing just that. If you have something to add, be my guest.

When are you going to start?

 

[lionking]

Utterly ridiculous - the impact is small in the overall economy and suggesting a recession would be the outcome of maybe 5% of people reducing productivity by 10-15% shows a total lack of understand of economics and arithmetic.

Where did you get the 5% from? It’s over 30% in Australia and about the same in the US? You are really all over the place.

 

[dirtywick]

Hate to be the guy to tell you but warehouse jobs have been being replaced by machines for a long time. Look up Amazon warehouse robots.

those warehouses employ a lot of people. certainly automation has changed manufacturing in a lot of significant ways, but there's a lot to running automation too. and there's still a lot of things it can't do.

 

[The Atheist]

Where did you get the 5% from? It’s over 30% in Australia and about the same in the US?

The 30% is spending some time working from home, not 30% of the work. The total is around 5% of all hours worked.

 

[The Atheist]

Hate to be the guy to tell you but warehouse jobs have been being replaced by machines for a long time.

I work with those people. I know how many machines there are and how many people are required to keep them loaded, running and have QC done on the output.

The jobs are dead safe for at least the next decade.

Yeah, the mental health of people is your concern. Sure, sure. Pull the other one.

Mental illness is a massive cost to employers, of course I'm concerned with it.

Some people prefer not to interact with others. Some people can't because of social anxiety. Quit acting like you give a **** about mental health. You're just jumping from bull **** argument to bull **** argument as they get whack-a-mole'd.

The fact the level of discussion is beyond your pay grade doesn't bother me at all.

The literal definition of trolling. "I did it to rile people up because it makes me feel better about myself to piss people off. I can't get attention from reasoned, intelligent arguments so trolling gives me the attention I crave and need".

I think you need some cheese with that whine.

It quickly found the paper-pushing-public-service-twats, who are desperate to work from home, so it worked a treat.

 

[The Atheist]

Ah, you've moved from the blanket absolute "working from home is bad for companies" to "not all companies". Now that you've managed that, let's define "outliers": I think in order to call some companies "outliers" you need to prove that they are the minority. Do you have any data to flavor your assertions? I think we'd need number of companies that favor WFH and the number of companies that don't. You can break it down by company size, industry, and location later.

I'd leave it to those who want to work from home to provide the evidence - they're the ones wanting special consideration.

So far, the evidence shows that it's not a helpful tactic for companies or the wider economy, so I don't see a need to provide anything else. I'm shutting the door on it and two of the companies I work with have followed that advice. If that means some PPPSTs get their panties in a bunch, I really don't care.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'd leave it to those who want to work from home to provide the evidence - they're the ones wanting special consideration.

Not many people get to choose, or have any input: the decision of whether an employee works from home or not is made by their employer, not the employee. There is no "special consideration" there. You are the one telling companies that have their workers WFH that they're wrong to do so -- despite what the companies themselves have determined from having, you know, actual data.

So far, the evidence shows

Ah, "the evidence". You haven't actually provided any. I don't blame you because I don't think you possibly could: you'd need to see inside the books of thousands, tens of thousands of companies to even come close to starting to be able to make such a determination.

But I don't believe you've been in the least bit serious about anything in this thread: this is just sheer trolling for lulz. These aren't even claims you've made, they're just unformed rambling. If you were doing this in person instead of working from home I'd check your pupils with a flashlight.

 

[lionking]

The 30% is spending some time working from home, not 30% of the work. The total is around 5% of all hours worked.

I don’t believe this. Show me.

 

[jeremyp]

Utterly ridiculous - the impact is small in the overall economy and suggesting a recession would be the outcome of maybe 5% of people reducing productivity by 10-15% shows a total lack of understand of economics and arithmetic.

The idea that WFH bans are driven by office space is even dumber - almost no companies own the real estate they occupy and if they could reduce rent by 80% they'd jump on it.



There will always be outliers, and a good example is accounting firms. I'm sure they could all work from home and retain productivity.



It's not any part of an argument against WFH, it's specifically designed to raise the hackles of the paper-pushing-public-servant-twat that wants to work from home. Worked.
That said, those very paper-pushing WFH introverts on their high horse of how clever they are reducing CO2 emissions never once consider the poor saps that can't do it.

The best news of all is, it is exactly those WFH jobs that are most-easily done by AI, so with any luck, they'll work from home until they're superseded by a machine.



That's exactly what's happening - and it seems to me that the majority of companies have figured it's not working for them.



As long as the potential downside includes the mental health of the workers, that's fine. My opinion is that people are better off in a work environment than living a hermit lifestyle, and that's where WFH leads.



Makes it more fun.



We appear to be doing just that. If you have something to add, be my guest.

Ah. Your opening post was trolling. Got it.

Maybe you could try having a discussion in good faith.

Edit: Ninja'd by Plague311

 

[Donal]

Utterly ridiculous - the impact is small in the overall economy and suggesting a recession would be the outcome of maybe 5% of people reducing productivity by 10-15% shows a total lack of understand of economics and arithmetic.

Go expalin that to the big bad alpha male CEOs and billionaires crying their little hearts out about it.

The idea that WFH bans are driven by office space is even dumber - almost no companies own the real estate they occupy and if they could reduce rent by 80% they'd jump on it.

So, you don't know how leases or corporate real estate work.

There will always be outliers, and a good example is accounting firms. I'm sure they could all work from home and retain productivity.

What makes them different from most other information and knowledge workers?

It's not any part of an argument against WFH, it's specifically designed to raise the hackles of the paper-pushing-public-servant-twat that wants to work from home.

Worked.

Yes, you did some edge lord trolling. How impressive. Maybe your grandkids will respect you now.

No, no they won't.

That said, those very paper-pushing WFH introverts on their high horse of how clever they are reducing CO2 emissions never once consider the poor saps that can't do it.

Hey, the argument of people like Ken Griffin and Elon Musk. Because people like that give a **** about the folks who have to be on site.

The best news of all is, it is exactly those WFH jobs that are most-easily done by AI, so with any luck, they'll work from home until they're superseded by a machine.

You're confusing "work from home" with "management".

That's exactly what's happening - and it seems to me that the majority of companies have figured it's not working for them.

They can't demonstrate or articulate why...they just know if their very heart of hearts.

Or maybe the investor class has decided it was time to once again collude against the workers.

As long as the potential downside includes the mental health of the workers, that's fine. My opinion is that people are better off in a work environment than living a hermit lifestyle, and that's where WFH leads.

But, as you are demosntrating once again, your opinion is not an iformed one. So, it doesn't matter. It holds no weight.

Not only is it emaningingless, it is the opposite of what can be demosntrated in the real world.

In fact, the increased hours, stagnating pay, and requirements for mroe "productivity" were causing people (especially young people) to be more isolated before WFH kicked in as the standard.

Makes it more fun.

You mean it distracts from the fact that yo uareguing from your precious feelings rather than reality.

We appear to be doing just that. If you have something to add, be my guest.

When have you demonstrated any negative affect on productivity.

 

[plague311]

those warehouses employ a lot of people. certainly automation has changed manufacturing in a lot of significant ways, but there's a lot to running automation too. and there's still a lot of things it can't do.

I'm not saying they're gone, but those warehouses employ fewer people because of the automation taking place. I worked in automation before my current job, I have a very good understanding of what goes into it. When we'd open a new line the guys would joke about how one, two, three employees wouldn't be needed anymore because of it. Heartless, but that's how it goes sometimes.

 

[plague311]

I'm shutting the door on it...

Ah, so that's what this is all about. You just wanted to show everyone else that you're in charge, and you make the choices! You get to flex your big bad boomer middle management muscles and tell everyone what to do. You're so impressive.

So you basically started this thread to see how many people would agree with you and simultaneously insult all those that don't? I can see why you're a big bad boomer middle management guy. I also see why someone like you would make a petty decision like this for your employees. It's the typical "If I don't get it, no one gets it" playground attitude that I felt most people outgrew in grade school. I guess not. I'm glad you took the time to show us all the truth behind this whole post. Gives me something to laugh at as I work from home for the rest of the day. My 4 dogs are getting a kick out of it too but I think they're just happy I'm happy.

 

[3point14]

I'd leave it to those who want to work from home to provide the evidence - they're the ones wanting special consideration.

So far, the evidence shows that it's not a helpful tactic for companies or the wider economy, so I don't see a need to provide anything else. I'm shutting the door on it and two of the companies I work with have followed that advice. If that means some PPPSTs get their panties in a bunch, I really don't care.

Clearly...

 

[Steve]

IMV, and based on personal experience, a happy employee who feels appreciated is much more likely to put in some extra effort than one who is forced into a narrow slot because corporate policy. Unhappy employees, should they choose to stick around, will quickly figure out the bare minimum they need to do in order to stay employed.

And the concept of trusting an employee to make decisions that could impact hundreds of thousands of $$ of a client's money, then not trust them to make reasonable decisions about their own work conditions is quite odd.

 

[dirtywick]

I'm not saying they're gone, but those warehouses employ fewer people because of the automation taking place. I worked in automation before my current job, I have a very good understanding of what goes into it. When we'd open a new line the guys would joke about how one, two, three employees wouldn't be needed anymore because of it. Heartless, but that's how it goes sometimes.

well i don’t think that’s really true. sometimes they eliminate some production roles, but often enough instead of people doing things by hand they’re running equipment and producing more product with same number of people. and often support roles like controls and process engineers and set up techs. there’s additional logistics and maintenance roles as well.

my point is that there may be fewer production roles, it’s more complex than that

 

[The Atheist]

I don’t believe this. Show me.

For Zarquon's sake, are you incapable of thinking at all?

How about your Bureau of Statistics? https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/working-home-remains-popular-less-2021

And before you jump up and down, I can guarantee you're ignoring the fact that half of those listed as doing WFH people are self-employed and have zero relevance to the discussion, because they've always done it.

Or maybe the investor class has decided it was time to once again collude against the workers.

I'll save you some crying towels now you've got to where you stand.

And the concept of trusting an employee to make decisions that could impact hundreds of thousands of $$ of a client's money, then not trust them to make reasonable decisions about their own work conditions is quite odd.

I've already stated several times that it's not about trust or supervision. It's about productivity, collaboration and the wider economy.

Thinking it's about bosses keeping an eye on their workers is naive and incorrect.

 

[plague311]

well i don’t think that’s really true. sometimes they eliminate some production roles, but often enough instead of people doing things by hand they’re running equipment and producing more product with same number of people. and often support roles like controls and process engineers and set up techs. there’s additional logistics and maintenance roles as well.

my point is that there may be fewer production roles, it’s more complex than that

I'll give you a prime example. About 4 years ago we started a project for a local pasta making factory that makes, boxes, and ships their pasta. At the time there was minimal automation for multiple reasons. The process would be the boxes get filled and sealed through automation. Then the sealed box would go down a belt and (1 or 2) employee(s) would put it inside a shipping box and push it down the roller line. Where another employee would put it on a pallet until that pallet is full, then they would wrap it with clear wrap, and another employee would snag the pallet and put it in inventory.

When we automated the line through PLCs, and machinery some of the last few people were gone. One person would run the whole line on a screen. Machines would pack the shipping boxes, slide them down, pick them up and put them on a pallet, a roller would apply the wrap and then someone would come get the pallet. At least 2 less employees, and I assure you they weren't promoted or reassigned.

All this is to say that while every employee isn't going to be replaced the bulk of them will be and there will ultimately be one or maybe two people that oversee the entirety of the process.

 

[dirtywick]

in my experience in practice that means they’re looking for a skilled maintenance guy with electrical and plc experience, a controls guy, and a process engineer to optimize and maintain the line and a more skilled operator to deal with breakdowns and raw materials. for whatever production guys they lost.

edit

food production too probably has a wash down/cleaning crew regardless as well

 

[lionking]

For Zarquon's sake, are you incapable of thinking at all?

How about your Bureau of Statistics? https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/working-home-remains-popular-less-2021

And before you jump up and down, I can guarantee you're ignoring the fact that half of those listed as doing WFH people are self-employed and have zero relevance to the discussion, because they've always done it.

As I expected, you pulled that 5% figure out of your arse. You are seriously embarrassing yourself here.

 

[angrysoba]

For Zarquon's sake, are you incapable of thinking at all?

How about your Bureau of Statistics? https://www.abs.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/working-home-remains-popular-less-2021

LOL!

“Our latest data, for August 2023, shows that 37 per cent of Australians work from home regularly. While this was down from around 40 per cent in 2021, it was still five percentage points above the pre-pandemic level, showing that many of the changes in behaviour and working arrangements have continued beyond the pandemic.” [/URL].

 

[The Atheist]

As I expected, you pulled that 5% figure out of your arse. You are seriously embarrassing yourself here.

Projection 101.

I showed you that half of the WFH is self-employed.

Of the rest, your own bureau notes that it is people who spent some time working from home in the previous week. Not all of, it, some.

I'm being generous suggesting it's about 50/50. 5% is very close to the mark.

 

[plague311]

in my experience in practice that means they’re looking for a skilled maintenance guy with electrical and plc experience, a controls guy, and a process engineer to optimize and maintain the line and a more skilled operator to deal with breakdowns and raw materials. for whatever production guys they lost.

edit

food production too probably has a wash down/cleaning crew regardless as well

That's just not the way it goes. If what you're implying here actually happened it would INCREASE costs for the company by a few fold. The employees the automation replaced were $14-16\hr employees. You're implying that they'd then have to go out and hire multiple people with, at the very least, tech school degree level knowledge. PLC programmers alone start in the mid-to-upper $30/hr on the low, low end (zip recruiter has them starting at no less than $68k/yr and up to $120k/yr). Control guys, process engineers, you'd be talking about adding high end 5 figure jobs to replace low end 5 figure jobs. It wouldn't make any sense. I'm sorry, you're just wrong.

Look at fast food as well. When I go to Taco Bell or McDonald's, I no longer order through an employee. I put my order in at the kiosk, get my food and I'm on my way. They didn't hire more front desk people, or an IT guy to reboot the kiosks if they have issues. The store managers do that. It just straight up replaced those employees and lowered costs. That's the entire reason behind going to automation.

 

[The Atheist]

food production too probably has a wash down/cleaning crew regardless as well

They don't yet have machines capable of doing QC, either.

Nice to see you clearly know what you're talking about - I'd be astonished if anyone else here knew what a PLC is, and the controls and process engineers are icing on the cake. Well played.

Hint for the person you're talking to: it's not Public Listed Company.

 

[plague311]

They don't yet have machines capable of doing QC, either.

Nice to see you clearly know what you're talking about - I'd be astonished if anyone else here knew what a PLC is, and the controls and process engineers are icing on the cake. Well played.

Hint for the person you're talking to: it's not Public Listed Company.

It's Programmable Logic Controller. I'd know, I've worked on hundreds of them. I have literal first hand experience in the real world, at an actual plant, doing this actual work.

You know nothing. Absolutely nothing. You just make things up and then talk down to everyone else while we laugh at you.

Just to show how little you know, here are automated QC systems. You should ******* learn something.

More and more manufacturers are adopting automated quality control systems in order to detect issues before it is too late or to reduce quality control costs. Automated quality control systems also enhance overall product quality, increase throughput, mitigate obsolete and cumbersome manual inspections, and improve competitiveness.

I've never seen someone act like they know so much while knowing abso ******* lutely nothing at all.

 

[jimbob]

In my industry lights-out fabs have been common for well over a decade.

 

[dirtywick]

That's just not the way it goes. If what you're implying here actually happened it would INCREASE costs for the company by a few fold. The employees the automation replaced were $14-16\hr employees. You're implying that they'd then have to go out and hire multiple people with, at the very least, tech school degree level knowledge. PLC programmers alone start in the mid-to-upper $30/hr on the low, low end (zip recruiter has them starting at no less than $68k/yr and up to $120k/yr). Control guys, process engineers, you'd be talking about adding high end 5 figure jobs to replace low end 5 figure jobs. It wouldn't make any sense. I'm sorry, you're just wrong.

well i think that is how it goes. automation increases costs but also increases productivity. there’s an initial cost and a lot of skilled labor in maintaining the lines but the productivity gains are a lot better than hiring more unskilled labor.

and those guys are required. what do you think happens when your servos starting throwing up position errors or the plc program is buggy or not doing what you want. this stuff breaks and needs to be improved and maintained. the line sits down and orders have to be filled. just how it goes.

this is more complex than many people think it is

 

[dirtywick]

They don't yet have machines capable of doing QC, either.

Nice to see you clearly know what you're talking about - I'd be astonished if anyone else here knew what a PLC is, and the controls and process engineers are icing on the cake. Well played.

Hint for the person you're talking to: it's not Public Listed Company.

well the thing is i'm not trying to say automation hasn't eliminated some jobs, because it clearly has. but the main thing it brings to me is much more output. like, a line that took 10 production people to run manually now takes 4 and puts out 5 times as much product, but there's a bunch of skilled people on the back end that keep a much more complex system running.

so, it's a little more complicated than that is all i mean.

 

[plague311]

well i think that is how it goes. automation increases costs but also increases productivity. there’s an initial cost and a lot of skilled labor in maintaining the lines but the productivity gains are a lot better than hiring more unskilled labor.

and those guys are required. what do you think happens when your servos starting throwing up position errors or the plc program is buggy or not doing what you want. this stuff breaks and needs to be improved and maintained. the line sits down and orders have to be filled. just how it goes.

this is more complex than many people think it is

I know how complex it is, I did it. I went to the planning and budgetary meetings, I heard the conversations of the why's and how's of the process from management to ownership, etc.

But, you seem convinced so I won't argue it anymore. We'll just have to disagree.

 

[dirtywick]

alright

 

[plague311]

In my industry lights-out fabs have been common for well over a decade.

It's becoming more and more common too.

 

[The Atheist]

It's Programmable Logic Controller. I'd know, I've worked on hundreds of them. I have literal first hand experience in the real world, at an actual plant, doing this actual work.

I find that surprising, but I'll accept it.

Just to show how little you know, here are automated QC systems.

Badly worded by me. I know they exist, but I've seen nothing in food production so far. No doubt it will happen, but it's not relevant to the subject so I'll give you that one.