Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
- For Robots Only: Amazon Sponsored Contest; Soft Fingers Needed
- Damn the Reports, Full Speed Ahead; Recession Overdue; Good Time to Normalize Rates?
- Jobs and Employment: How Much Recession Warning Can One Expect?
For Robots Only: Amazon Sponsored Contest; Soft Fingers Needed Posted: 26 Mar 2015 01:12 PM PDT Amazon is sponsoring a robot warehouse automation contest to see who can pack the most boxes in the least amount of time without dropping any packages or crushing anything delicate such as cookies. In the contest, in which human workers are not eligible to apply, the robots will have to work without any remote guidance from their creators. Please consider the MIT Technology Review, Amazon Robot Contest May Accelerate Warehouse Automation. Packets of Oreos, boxes of crayons, and squeaky dog toys will test the limits of robot vision and manipulation in a competition this May. Amazon is organizing the event to spur the development of more nimble-fingered product-packing machines.The preceding MIT review describes the 2015 ICRA Contest May 26-30 in Seattle. 2014 Participant Video The above video shows the 2014 University of Colorado Amazon Picking Entry. The Baxter robot actually seems a bit clumsy because grasping and packing random objects is not a precisely repetitive action. The University of Colorado video gets interesting towards the end, highlighting advancements in "soft fingers" and human-like skin. Meet Baxter I discussed Baxter on January 22, 2013 in Meet "Baxter" the Robot Out to Get Your Minimum-Wage, No Benefits, Part-Time Job, Because He's Still Much Cheaper; Fed Cannot Win a Fight Against Robots. Soft Fingers Needed Soft fingers and better motions are needed to win the 2015 contest, and they are coming (image from the University of Colorado video). Anything that can be automated, will. The higher the minimum wage and the lower the interest rate, the more incentive companies have to replace humans with hardware and software robots. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damn the Reports, Full Speed Ahead; Recession Overdue; Good Time to Normalize Rates? Posted: 26 Mar 2015 11:58 AM PDT Here's one for the I'll believe it when I see it category: Fed Officials say Rate Hike Plan Intact Despite Weak U.S. Data. In separate events in Frankfurt and Detroit, St. Louis Fed President James Bullard and Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart said U.S. monetary policy might need to be adjusted in light of the economy's steady improvement since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.Totally Clueless In simple terms, Lockhart may as well have said that he is "totally clueless." We are going on 7 years of economic expansion. The San Francisco Fed has an interesting report on the Duration and Timing of Recessions. NBER records show that, over the period from the mid-1940s until 2007, the average recession lasted 10 months, while the average expansion lasted 57 months, giving us an average business cycle of 67 months or about 5 years and seven months. However, there has been considerable variation in the length of business cycle expansions and contractions in the past.Recession Overdue Statistically speaking, a recession is overdue although there is wide variance in both the length of recessions and recoveries. Yet, there is very little reason to believe weak report after weak report is "transitory". The idea "we're still on a solid track," is downright ludicrous. Good Time to Normalize Rates? Is this a good time to normalize rates? Let's answer it this way: It's better than a month from now but not as good as two years ago. In fact, for the second time, rates never should have gotten as low as they did for as long as they did. The Fed has sponsored three asset bubbles in recent history, each of increasing amplitude. Three Major Bubbles
Bubble number three is still expanding. Few admit that it's a bubble, simply because it hasn't popped yet. If the Fed does hike (which is doubtful because Yellen is calling the shots, not Bullard or Lockhart), most will point a finger and say the "Fed caused a needless recession". Nothing could be further from the truth. By blowing yet another asset bubble, the Fed guaranteed another hugely destructive asset deflation bust. Why hike? The reason to hike is the bigger the bubble, the bigger the bust, something the Fed should have thought about in advance but didn't, and never does. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jobs and Employment: How Much Recession Warning Can One Expect? Posted: 26 Mar 2015 12:17 AM PDT Watching the Wrong Things Many market watchers have their eye on jobs and the unemployment rate as the determinant of when the Fed will hike. Let's investigate the wisdom of that approach with actual data. I downloaded seasonally adjusted employment and jobs data for the last five recessions from the BLS. Because the recessions start in different months, use of seasonally adjusted data is mandatory for this exercise. My focus is on jobs and employment in the period three months prior to the recession to three months after the recession. I used the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) report on US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions as the official arbiter as to when recessions begin. Jobs are from the Establishment Survey. Employment is from the Household Survey. Results are similar. Recessions vs. Employment (in Thousands)
Recessions vs. Jobs (in Thousands)
How Much Warning Can One Expect? The answer is clearly none. In the previous five recessions, jobs peaked two months after the start of the recession once, one month later once, one month prior twice, and once during the recession month. In the previous five recessions, employment peaked one month after the start of the recession twice, one month prior twice, and once during the recession month. The NBER says the last US recession started in December of 2007 and lasted until June of 2009. Let's take a closer look at stats from that recession. 2007-2009 Recession Stats
In the last recession, jobs and employment did not provide a clear signal for months. Negative Data Pours In With the exceptions of jobs, most other data has been negative.
Economists keep watching jobs, a lagging indicator, somehow convinced that jobs tell the story of what the Fed is about to do. Such a focus is complete silliness. When it's clear that jobs have turned, the economy will likely be in recession. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com |
You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States |