Politics

[woolybug25]

Transportation: That's a brave guess in your brave new world (great book), but if you think we're putting a robot behind a truck carrying 80,000 pounds of goods you're kidding yourself.

Because putting a tired human, all jacked up on red bull and blow, is a safer solution?

I kid... kinda...

 

[AvesEvo]

I think you all are missing a big point with low wages. Yes, they save the corporation money, but they also make it very hard for workers to quit. You can't quit if you can't afford being without work and it is damn difficult interviewing for a job if you can't leave work. It isn't much of a free market if you can't quit.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So your industry will manage its problematic driver shortage by ignoring a technology that would solve the problem at a reduced long term cost? That does not seem like a sound business decision.

This technology could potentially help relieve a truck driver on a long haul. It does not replace truck drivers. Keep trying.

 

[GoIrish41]

Good point!

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Because putting a tired human, all jacked up on red bull and blow, is a safer solution?

I kid... kinda...

1) Not all truck drivers are long haul drivers. Many are domiciled/ assigned to a local terminal, cover a small geographic area, work Mon-Fri, home every night, and can't drive more than 12 hours a day.

2) These guys get drug tested more than the dudes in the NFL.

 

[GoIrish41]

This technology could potentially help relieve a truck driver on a long haul. It does not replace truck drivers. Keep trying.

Not yet. Technology tends to keep advancing. My granddad used to tell me stories about taking a buggy to visit friends to play board games because there were no cars ... Or TVs. Someday soon your truck drivers will be watching ball games on their telephones while making the run to Jersey. How long do executives keep paying them before they just go full automation? They are in business to make money after all. Once they have the technology in hand, what reason would they have to keep expensive drivers?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Not yet. Technology tends to keep advancing. My granddad used to tell me stories about taking a buggy to visit friends to play board games because there were no cars ... Or TVs. Someday soon your truck drivers will be watching ball games on their telephones while making the run to Jersey. How long do executives keep paying them before they just go full automation? They are in business to make money after all. Once they have the technology in hand, what reason would they have to keep expensive drivers?

1)You're assuming the technology will be capable of doing everything a human does, and in this case there are other factors you aren't taking into account because you're not in that industry. These factors can include: avoiding accidents, communication with the shipper and end customer, loading the freight properly, entering info correctly on the handheld device, etc. What happens if your robot commits a violation? Is it going to be able to talk to the cop? Is it going to pay the violation? What if the robot damages freight? Good luck filing that claim...

2) You're assuming the technology will be error free. Wrong. Ever try to get through a work day with no email or internet? That executive you mention will pay more for a human to do it before his $5000.00 truckload gets screwed because of a robot.

3) A strong majority of truck drivers for big companies (UPS, Fedex) are union guys. Even if the technology were available and ready to roll out, the unions would file so many grievences (because the company would be taking work away from the union guys) that it would be tied up in court for years. Years.

 

[Cackalacky]

Anti-Abortion Group Forced To Admit Fiorina Lied About Planned Parenthood Videos (VIDEO) «

Interesting. Not that it matters much, reportedly the late term baby referenced by Fiorina re: abortion videos was a late term miscarriage and not an abortion. The video in the link has Dailiden admitting it.

 

[pkt77242]

1)You're assuming the technology will be capable of doing everything a human does, and in this case there are other factors you aren't taking into account because you're not in that industry. These factors can include: avoiding accidents, communication with the shipper and end customer, loading the freight properly, entering info correctly on the handheld device, etc. What happens if your robot commits a violation? Is it going to be able to talk to the cop? Is it going to pay the violation? What if the robot damages freight? Good luck filing that claim...

Why wouldn't the technology be able to do everything that a human does? In fact it will probably do it better (as it won't be texting, taking phone calls, putting on make-up, changing the station, etc.). Communication? You do realize that you are talking about a computer right. I am pretty sure that it can handle it. If the software commits a violation the company would be responsible for the fine. The company is responsible, and it won't be a robot, it will be have a computer built into it with software. An interesting tidbit is that Google's self-driving car project has close to 2 million miles under its belt and has yet to be at fault for an accident (it has been rear-ended a few times).

2) You're assuming the technology will be error free. Wrong. Ever try to get through a work day with no email or internet? That executive you mention will pay more for a human to do it before his $5000.00 truckload gets screwed because of a robot.

It isn't about assuming that it won't make mistakes, but it will likely make less mistakes then a human. You act like humans never make mistakes as well. Plus it won't need time-off or rest (well at least not significant rest).

3) A strong majority of truck drivers for big companies (UPS, Fedex) are union guys. Even if the technology were available and ready to roll out, the unions would file so many grievences (because the company would be taking work away from the union guys) that it would be tied up in court for years. Years.

This is by far your best argument (and a reason why Unions are still important) but no one is saying that driver-less trucks are coming tomorrow, we are saying that in 10-15, it is more likely than not that they will be here.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I don't think anyone anywhere believes the disabled or children should have to fend for themselves. Students? Of course they should. They're deferring income today in exchange for greater income in the future. It's called sacrifice. Also, I've never heard someone defend "amoral crony global capitalism." Capitalism, at its core, is about the voluntary exchange of goods, services, and labor. Any cronyism that results is not caused by the voluntary exchange of goods, services, and labor, but by deviations therefrom.

The biggest problem with this idea of a guaranteed minimum income is that it presupposes that there is such a thing as a free lunch. Obviously that's false. The author of this brain-dead article wants folks to be free from the constraints of their employers; that is, to receive goods or services without working for them. The problem is, nobody can receive any good or service without work being done by somebody. If the recipient isn't the one laboring for what he receives, that means somebody else is laboring involuntarily on his behalf. That's slavery.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

Wasn't Milton Friedman in full support of a guaranteed minimum income?

It's pretty simple from a libertarian/conservative point of view: an individual know more about how to spend money in their life than the government, so instead of dozens of inefficient and often redundant social welfare programs, just guarantee a minimum income for everyone. We're basically already giving people the money via welfare, tax credits, etc; this just simplifies it all.

 

[Buster Bluth]

That's such bullshit. The human race is 200,000 years old. The explosion of the service economy happened in the 1980s. People "survived" just fine for 199,970 years before they had a 8:00 - 4:30 shift at the Dairy Queen.

That's the example you use?

Agriculture, the most basic (and important) technology has only been around for ~11,500 years. So 94% of the time humans have been around we've basically just been searching for berries and masturbating in caves.

Technology has changed things in ways people before it have barely even been able to imagine.

Poor in America have it pretty good by global and historical standards. Would you rather live on $12k in 2015 USA or $100k (inflation adjusted) in 1915?

Artificially inflating our wages with a "minimum" pushes jobs overseas. Standard of living has dramatically increased in those evil countries stealing our jobs. One of the struggles of China is that their wage inflation has reduced their competitive advantage, seeing jobs run away to lower cost areas. Excuse me for lacking sorrow for our poor when the true poor of humanity are provided opportunity to improve their lives much more dramatically than the USA poor who really need a new Iphone or second TV so they can watch cable while they play Xbox.

To your first paragraph, what was so bad about a time when a guy could get a high school diploma and walk down the street to the factory and get a job that paid for his food, car, house, kids' college, etc without his wife having to work? Yeah, technology is getting better and it's great, but I think your argument invites people to take their eye off the ball and not assess their relative standing in society honestly.

To your second paragraph, your strawman picture of the poor doesn't help anything. I don't give corporations engaging in a race to the bottom much thought, almost solely because of what I said in response to your first paragraph.

 

[Wild Bill]

Wasn't Milton Friedman in full support of a guaranteed minimum income?

It's pretty simple from a libertarian/conservative point of view: an individual know more about how to spend money in their life than the government, so instead of dozens of inefficient and often redundant social welfare programs, just guarantee a minimum income for everyone. We're basically already giving people the money via welfare, tax credits, etc; this just simplifies it all.

They know how to spend the money they earn. Unearned money in an individual's hand is usually pissed away no different than the government.

 

[IrishinSyria]

‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

ROSEBURG, OR—In the hours following a violent rampage in southwestern Oregon in which a lone attacker killed 10 individuals and seriously injured seven others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Thursday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Ohio resident Lindsay Bennett, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past six years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

Compare with: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

ISLA VISTA, CA—In the days following a violent rampage in southern California in which a lone attacker killed seven individuals, including himself, and seriously injured over a dozen others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said North Carolina resident Samuel Wipper, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

See, also: ‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

CHARLESTON, SC—In the hours following a violent rampage in downtown Charleston in which a lone attacker killed nine individuals and seriously injured one other, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Wednesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Oklahoma resident Kenneth Barrows, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this guy from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what he really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past five and a half years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

 

[Buster Bluth]

Have you ever taken an economics course? A single one? Like in high school even?

I can get as fiery as the next guy on the politics pages, and I love that I can treat this place like a village bar and come in here ranting and you guys give it back, but damn bro you need a xanax or something?

What part of voluntary is beyond your ability to comprehend? If you don't want to work in poor conditions for poor wages, don't.

Yeah you're pretty hung up on this whole voluntary thing. Have you missed the endless examples of humans using their leverage over others throughout history? You have to shut out so much of reality to walk around going "blah blah voluntary" all day.

I really don't even know how to approach this.

If nobody is willing to work in poor conditions for poor wages, guess what happens? Wages rise. Why is an American man so far superior to a Chinese man that he should be paid $8.25 per hour to do a job that the Chinese man is willing to do for half that?

Because the American lives in your school district and his fortunes and misfortunes can impact you exponentially more than the Chinese fellow?

Or maybe just because you're patriotic and put this country (thus the individuals within it, right mr. libertarian?) first?

The second an employer says "I am willing to do job "A" for wage "B" in conditions "C," then that's what that job is worth. Don't like it? Acquire a skill that provides protection from being undercut. Don't feel like it? Starve. Can't, because of a physical or mental condition that prevents you from working? You'll be taken care of.

You're missing the part where technology is replacing skills faster than people can learn them. That's what this whole discussion is about.

Here's where I say "those jobs to acquire skills for just aren't there anymore, and aren't coming back."

And then you say "bullshit look at all of engineering jobs, or trades!"

And then I say "Yeah trades are great I'm with you there, but that still won't cover the unemployment gap for young people, or fix our wage issues..."

And you say "study hard, become an engineer! or starve!"

and I say "bro, we need jobs for the dumb people. That's really the point people are too PC to say. Society was much better off when the dumb people could walk down the street and into the high-paying factory job we talked about earlier. Yes, we need more engineers, but you still haven't solved the problem of providing for the uneducated."

 

[ACamp1900]

Was The Aonion just quoted three separate times in this thread? A game today....

 

[Buster Bluth]

They know how to spend the money they earn. Unearned money in an individual's hand is usually pissed away no different than the government.

I'd love for you to elaborate on that. Seems like some odd logic coated in disdain for poor people..

But while we're here, "pissed away" is subjective, but is objectively spending. Poor people spend every dollar they have. They aren't saving it, or burning it, or taking it out of the economy. They're spending it. That spending employs someone chief.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I think you all are missing a big point with low wages. Yes, they save the corporation money, but they also make it very hard for workers to quit. You can't quit if you can't afford being without work and it is damn difficult interviewing for a job if you can't leave work. It isn't much of a free market if you can't quit.

This is one of my biggest gripes with the ACA. I don't like that I have to buy health insurance. Every month I have to go purchase something, meaning I have to go get an income, which makes it harder for me to walk away from a bad situation to seek better opportunities.

It reminds me of a bit I read in a book about suburbanization recently. Us Americans ate up the idea of a mortgage, whereas Europeans weren't as enthused. The book quotes (I think it was..) Engels who basically said in the context of labor-capital relations it can act as a ball and chain. Once you've agreed to pay the bank money every month for your working career, you need to come up with that cash, so your ability to quit (ie negotiate) is greatly reduced.

Interesting stuff.

 

[IrishinSyria]

This is one of my biggest gripes with the ACA. I don't like that I have to buy health insurance. Every month I have to go purchase something, meaning I have to go get an income, which makes it harder for me to walk away from a bad situation to seek better opportunities.

It reminds me of a bit I read in a book about suburbanization recently. Us Americans ate up the idea of a mortgage, whereas Europeans weren't as enthused. The book quotes (I think it was..) Engels who basically said in the context of labor-capital relations it can act as a ball and chain. Once you've agreed to pay the bank money every month for your working career, you need to come up with that cash, so your ability to quit (ie negotiate) is greatly reduced.

Interesting stuff.

But if you don't have income you won't have to purchase insurance...

 

[Buster Bluth]

Transportation: That's a brave guess in your brave new world (great book), but if you think we're putting a robot behind a truck carrying 80,000 pounds of goods you're kidding yourself.

This technology could potentially help relieve a truck driver on a long haul. It does not replace truck drivers. Keep trying.

Corporations strongly disagree with you. It'll be robot v900.0 and it'll be far better at driving than people are.

I mean it's basically accepted as fact that self-driving cars are right around the corner. First we'll see self-driving Uber destroy cabs and even damage car sales as people resort to that in big cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. But semi-trucks will be automated in time man.

 

[Buster Bluth]

But if you don't have income you won't have to purchase insurance...

Okay hold on, for my 10 post in an hour I maybe went on acid hahah this is what happens when I try to respond to a good day on the politics forum.

If I straight up quit my job because I hate it, do I not have to sign up for Obamacare and pay something for a lower rate or hopefully qualify for medicaid? Or else get fined? Isn't health coverage mandatory? Shouldn't I, as a free individual trying to live in a voluntary world, be able to say "nah, I'm good" and walk away?

 

[Wild Bill]

I'd love for you to elaborate on that. Seems like some odd logic coated in disdain for poor people..

But while we're here, "pissed away" is subjective, but is objectively spending. Poor people spend every dollar they have. They aren't saving it, or burning it, or taking it out of the economy. They're spending it. That spending employs someone chief.

I never mentioned anything about poor people. You did. Strange you would assume my comment only applied to the poor. Seems like an odd subconscious disdain for poor people...

 

[Buster Bluth]

uh huh

 

[IrishinSyria]

Okay hold on, for my 10 post in an hour I maybe went on acid hahah this is what happens when I try to respond to a good day on the politics forum.

If I straight up quit my job because I hate it, do I not have to sign up for Obamacare and pay something for a lower rate or hopefully qualify for medicaid? Or else get fined? Isn't health coverage mandatory? Shouldn't I, as a free individual trying to live in a voluntary world, be able to say "nah, I'm good" and walk away?

Well a) you WOULD qualify for Medicaid, because you wouldn't have any income.

But as to your free society point, no, because you're not actually agreeing to not avail yourself of our healthcare system. Instead you're saying, nah I'm good, I'll just use emergency care at taxpayer expense of anything goes wrong.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Corporations strongly disagree with you. It'll be robot v900.0 and it'll be far better at driving than people are.

I mean it's basically accepted as fact that self-driving cars are right around the corner. First we'll see self-driving Uber destroy cabs and even damage car sales as people resort to that in big cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. But semi-trucks will be automated in time man.

I didn't know all the "corporations" gave you the green light to speak for them.

As for the self driving cars, that's one thing. Looked like a cool scene in the movie I Robot. Let me know when corporations like Frito Lay, Urban Outfitters, Under Armour, and Kellogg's are ready to fully replace humans with robots behind the wheel.

Even the article that pkt linked discussed the technology that would help drivers, not replace them.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Why wouldn't the technology be able to do everything that a human does? In fact it will probably do it better (as it won't be texting, taking phone calls, putting on make-up, changing the station, etc.). Communication? You do realize that you are talking about a computer right. I am pretty sure that it can handle it. If the software commits a violation the company would be responsible for the fine. The company is responsible, and it won't be a robot, it will be have a computer built into it with software. An interesting tidbit is that Google's self-driving car project has close to 2 million miles under its belt and has yet to be at fault for an accident (it has been rear-ended a few times).

It isn't about assuming that it won't make mistakes, but it will likely make less mistakes then a human. You act like humans never make mistakes as well. Plus it won't need time-off or rest (well at least not significant rest).



This is by far your best argument (and a reason why Unions are still important) but no one is saying that driver-less trucks are coming tomorrow, we are saying that in 10-15, it is more likely than not that they will be here.

1) I think it's funny you claim to have all the answers for this technology that does not yet exist. Let's remind ourselves the article YOU linked discussed technology that still requires a human behind the wheel.

2) Mistakes are made every day. At least when a mistake is made by a human, you know where the responsibility lies.

3) Technology and capability aside, the unions (rightfully so) would have this tied up in court forever.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm torn on the whole minimum wage debate. People in this country have developed an "I want it now, put it on the the credit card, I don't need to be fiscally responsible" syndrome. TTT has mentioned it already that many low income people live like they're making a lot more. I hate to say it, but I have family members who don't earn very much money and 1) They're the first to buy the next new gadget and 2) The first to complain that the little guy can't get ahead. If you raise the minimum wage, they're just going to spend more of it on crap they don't need and can't afford to impress people they don't even know. (-Dave Ramsey)

Somewhere along the line of human development, people lost the ability to take responsibility for their own actions and are quick to blame someone else.

With that said, you can't paint everyone with the same brush and I think that's what makes this so difficult. Not all rich people are me-first crooks. Just like not all poor people are lazy and unwilling to work because they get free handouts and "Obama phones." It's proven that the majority of wealthy people in the country are first-generation rich. They earned it (yes with the help of the tax code, but that's another debate). It's also proven in this country that most people want to work. They want earn money to support their family.

I think it's important to understand the gray area and find a way to help the less fortunate but also continue to promote that hard work/sacrifice/responsibility can lead to big things. You can't punish someone for making it to the top, just like you can't stand on someone's neck when they're down. There needs to be better balance.

 

[RDU Irish]

[/URL]

The convo keeps going in circles. The argument is that minimum wage if removed and wages are allowed to go as low as 3rd world countries, then yes poor people here in the US will become poorer. Becasue wages will decrease. Regulations and taxes (which are relatively low here compared to other places) and other things that keep us moderately protected from harm will go away to. This includes worker safety, environmental protection blah blah vlah.... What is being argued is this is a race to the bottom.

Another Study Confirms: U.S. Has One of the Highest Effective Corporate Tax Rates in the World | Tax Foundation

I, and most of the civilized world, world respectfully disagree with the bolded. And this does not account for FICA adding to the cost of employing in US.

The fight we put into 10% of taxes collected versus 45% for individual and 45% for FICA is a bit mind numbing to me. Does anyone really think that cutting the corporate tax rate in half or more would not more than be made up in the increases in individual income taxes and FICA? I mean, anyone that actually sits down and thinks about it for a minute instead of immediately bashing the concept.

 

[RDU Irish]

That's not how technological advancement works. Automation always destroys more jobs than it creates. That's the entire point of the enterprise-- the remove expensive, error-prone humans from a process.

Yes, in the near future those with the skills to maintain and repair robots will have similarly robust employment prospects; but the number of those jobs will be truly insignificant compared to the millions of obsolete bus & truck drivers, fast food workers, Amazon shelf stockers, etc.

CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST: ATMs and a Rising Number of Bank Tellers?

Obama said ATMs put bank tellers out of work. Why would anyone go into a bank when they can drive through and take care of business? I dunno, maybe those banks just hate making money and pay people to stand around doing nothing. Did Henry Ford employ more people than EVER made a buggy whip?

Your argument is horribly flawed, improved productivity through technology redirects resources to other pursuits. A self driving truck would allow the operator to do a ton of things other than stare blankly at the road. Could be lining up his next job, calling/texting/emailing updates to customers on ETA, eating a sandwich so he doesn't have to stop. Whole pile of things that increase utilization of a capital asset and make them more efficient at their job, thus increasing their value and ability to make more money.

 

[woolybug25]

CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST: ATMs and a Rising Number of Bank Tellers?

Obama said ATMs put bank tellers out of work. Why would anyone go into a bank when they can drive through and take care of business? I dunno, maybe those banks just hate making money and pay people to stand around doing nothing. Did Henry Ford employ more people than EVER made a buggy whip?

Your argument is horribly flawed, improved productivity through technology redirects resources to other pursuits. A self driving truck would allow the operator to do a ton of things other than stare blankly at the road. Could be lining up his next job, calling/texting/emailing updates to customers on ETA, eating a sandwich so he doesn't have to stop. Whole pile of things that increase utilization of a capital asset and make them more efficient at their job, thus increasing their value and ability to make more money.

To the bolded, the rise of ATM's has absolutely killed banking jobs. The industry has significantly less brick and mortar locations and the total employment is less than half of what it was 20 years ago. Those jobs (tellers, personal bankers, branch managers) haven't simply been absorbed into different positions. They were cut completely out of the head count in banking. It is a very real example of technology taking jobs. An example that is now being exasperated by online banking, mobile apps and call centers. Even on the commercial side of the business, we are seeing banks around the country doing more with less.

To your example, at least in my industry, those lost positions aren't creating better utilization of capital assets. They are simply reducing positions and shrinking the industry.

 

[RDU Irish]

Have any data to back that up? I have a hard time believing there are fewer total bank employees today than there were in 1985 for example.

And if you think banks are not more efficient and profitable from the rise of ATMs then why exactly do they use them? If the organization is more efficient and profitable, that means the employees are more productive.

I really don't see how people think that pushing for $15 minimum wages with FICA and health care costs stacked on top does nothing but accelerate a move to automation. People talk out of both sides of their mouth expecting that burger flippers deserve a "living wage" (a nebulous moving target that is never enough) but cannot fathom how paying everyone more does not have consequences?