|
Truckers being reduced to baby sitters at a greatly depressed wage is pretty much the same as their jobs being gone. It's not just the fact that they are going to be paid less but there's much less dignity in sitting in a truck while it drives you around than actually having the agency to drive it yourself. Telling them "you still technically have your jobs" isn't going to trick them.
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Sanders is still alive. So is Kucinich. Bernie s great but in national terms he was considered a joke until very recently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:At least Debs got to die of old age Killed by imprisonment really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
There is no point having a self-driving truck if you have to put a warm body in it. No savings. They only do that now because self-driving cars are in *beta* and not really capable of driving themselves. And more importantly, because traffic laws say that there must be a qualified driver in a vehicle. Assuming that they will roll out fleets of self-driving trucks with depressed truckers in them doing nothing is like assuming the local building site will still have scaffolding up when the houses are finished and sold. As soon as they are legally capable of driving themselves, the drivers will be gone.
BarbarianElephant fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:That's decently likely. Radish posted:Truckers being reduced to baby sitters at a greatly depressed wage is pretty much the same as their jobs being gone. It's not just the fact that they are going to be paid less but there's much less dignity in sitting in a truck while it drives you around than actually having the agency to drive it yourself. Telling them "you still technically have your jobs" isn't going to trick them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Personal anecdote time! I've got a buddy who got his bachelor degree in history about ten years ago who has flopped between constant unemployment and teaching jobs he hates because he can't find a job he likes. I have told him (as have others) that he needs to take steps to make himself more hirable by companies, be that in continuing his education, upgrading his skill sets in real world scenarios, or starting low on the totem pole and working his way up. But he won't do it. He put in those four years, and God damnit he deserves a well paying career and will wait until he finds it. This has been going on for a decade. He told me for months what an idiot Trump is and how terrible a president he would be. And, with a degree in history, he was very confident about this. But he voted for him. "Why?" "I'm hoping that Trump is rich enough that he won't care about making money and will work on improving the economy." "Do you really believe that?" Really long pause. "No. I don't truly believe he'll enact any of the things he promised." "Why did you really vote for him then?" "Do you think you're smarter than me?" I realized he voted for Trump to create an economy and job market that literally doesn't exist. For a career that he doesn't even know what industry or market it would be in. Is this the general economic gap we're up against? People who are actively stagnating themselves and don't want to work to improve their capabilities? Are the people in the rust belt folks who don't want to change and expect the world and economy to come to them? I don't even know how to talk to my friend about this because it doesn't paint him in a very good light and I don't want to alienate him. Or maybe I'm out of touch with the realities of the current economy since I'm employed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Where are the real rough edges? Because if the time where you need human intervention is predictable and limited, you could have a team of truckers in a central location who just assume control of any truck that's about to do some task the computer isn't up to yet. Eventually, you can then phase out even these truckers, as the times they need to intervene gets reduced. You can't remote control a goddamn truck, are you kidding me? A single signal outage or dropped packet would be disastrous, not to mention latency. Automation is only viable with an on-site human override.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Where are the real rough edges? Because if the time where you need human intervention is predictable and limited, you could have a team of truckers in a central location who just assume control of any truck that's about to do some task the computer isn't up to yet. Eventually, you can then phase out even these truckers, as the times they need to intervene gets reduced. A freak snowstorm means you literally can't get over the Appalachians. Where does the truck go, what does it do? Right now, the trucker probably camps out in a parking lot somewhere. But an autonomous vehicle is going to have a hard time figuring out where it can safely chill out - it can't step inside of a business, tell the owner what's going on, and make sure it's fine to park. The latch on the back wasn't secured properly, and the doors flung open and a bunch of stuff fell out. A human would notice this happening and pull over and deal with the situation. The truck can't figure out how to get a crate back inside of itself, it just knows how to drive. Software takes a very, very, very long time to adapt to handle every potential issue. It's not that none of these things are insurmountable - it's just that there are a hell of a lot of them, a lot of them are responsibilities that the driver is there for that the owner doesn't even think about. And yeah, eventually. But not by next election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It's the not predictable stuff. As for the the rest, while those are legitimate issues, it seems like they're also something you can put into a spreadsheet as a predictable cost, at which point it just becomes a question of where the break even point is for manned vs. semi-autonomous trucks on any given route/with any given cargo. Sure, you get a host of new problems you have to deal with, but if they come out ahead of the cost of the problems associated with human drivers (like having to pay them) then companies will probably accept them, and push for legislation that makes that decision even less of a risk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:I'm actually reconsidering whether it even needs to be predictable, being limited might be enough. Like, some sort of weather alert would just come pop up in trucker central, after which some dude drives the truck to a safe position and then puts it in standby mode until its conditions improve enough for him (or one of his colleagues) puts it back into drive mode. quote:As for the the rest, while those are legitimate issues, it seems like they're also something you can put into a spreadsheet as a predictable cost, at which point it just becomes a question of where the break even point is for manned vs. semi-autonomous trucks on any given route/with any given cargo. Sure, you get a host of new problems you have to deal with, but if they come out ahead of the cost of the problems associated with human drivers (like having to pay them) then companies will probably accept them, and push for legislation that makes that decision even less of a risk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Violator posted:Personal anecdote time! I've got a buddy who got his bachelor degree in history about ten years ago who has flopped between constant unemployment and teaching jobs he hates because he can't find a job he likes. I have told him (as have others) that he needs to take steps to make himself more hirable by companies, be that in continuing his education, upgrading his skill sets in real world scenarios, or starting low on the totem pole and working his way up. But he won't do it. He put in those four years, and God damnit he deserves a well paying career and will wait until he finds it. This has been going on for a decade. The truth is your friend is out of touch and delusional. You can say he's the product of a system that didn't adequately prepare him for life after college but he's had quite some time to address it on his own. You can probably extrapolate that to wider groups, because human nature tends to be the same all over, but I wouldn't recommend it. Btw you are smarter than your friend. Raw intelligence isn't much use if it's not used to inform the decision making process (i.e. job-hunting or voting).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I agree that coal is doomed and I support channeling those people into infrastructure projects and other blue collar work instead of the Obama/Clinton idea of "retraining" and the pipe dream that 45 year old miners can do a pivot into computer engineering with an itt tech degree Originally, you were disagreeing with my point that American voters would vote for a liar over someone who tells them the truth, at least when it comes to coal and manufacturing jobs. I'm not arguing with infrastructure either; I love it, you love it, and Hillary loved it (on the DNC.com website), but all that didn't penetrate Trump saying he would bring the coal and manufacturing jobs back. Not just preserve the ones that were already there; bring them back. How do you campaign against that without attacking the credibility of the person proposing it? Serious question. Oh, and pertinently, it seems Trump's pick for the Department of Labor is the CEO of Carl's Jr. and opposes increasing the minimum wage. But at least we've established that the higher minimum wage will not be earned by driving robot trucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:There is no point having a self-driving truck if you have to put a warm body in it. No savings. They only do that now because self-driving cars are in *beta* and not really capable of driving themselves. And more importantly, because traffic laws say that there must be a qualified driver in a vehicle. Assuming that they will roll out fleets of self-driving trucks with depressed truckers in them doing nothing is like assuming the local building site will still have scaffolding up when the houses are finished and sold. As soon as they are legally capable of driving themselves, the drivers will be gone. This is 100% incorrect, the safety savings alone will be staggering. It really depends what DOT decides to do as far as logging hours, will "driver assisting" count as dot logged driving hours?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Originally, you were disagreeing with my point that American voters would vote for a liar over someone who tells them the truth, at least when it comes to coal and manufacturing jobs. I'm not arguing with infrastructure either; I love it, you love it, and Hillary loved it (on the DNC.com website), but all that didn't penetrate Trump saying he would bring the coal and manufacturing jobs back. Not just preserve the ones that were already there; bring them back. You campaign by calling it bullshit and having your own plan. Clinton got killed here because she was the wife of the man who gave us nafta and didn't feel like telling anyone about her infrastructure plan beyond "check my website". Oh yeah, she also told coal country they were screwed and once she got her attention she gave a half assed apology instead of ACTUALLY SAYING HOW SHE WOULD HELP THEM Being the platonic ideal of an establishment democrat killed her in the rust belt. She was doing the same song and dance that Obama and Bill have given the past 20 years of screaming for change only to ignore them after the election. The issue was she had the charisma of a wet paper bag and was seen as a two faced liar. Remember that most rust belt democrats didn't vote for trump, they just stayed the gently caress home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
I can also already hear the "BG is a sexist because he's holding a wife to her husbands actions" posts being typed out. These are the same people who would be super skeptical if Ivanka started coming out with a massive progressive platform for her father, by the way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:You campaign by calling it bullshit and having your own plan. Clinton got killed here because she was the wife of the man who gave us nafta and didn't feel like telling anyone about her infrastructure plan beyond "check my website". Oh yeah, she also told coal country they were screwed and once she got her attention she gave a half assed apology instead of ACTUALLY SAYING HOW SHE WOULD HELP THEM You wanted her to lie. Maybe she should have, but don't pretend that's not what you wanted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:You wanted her to lie. Maybe she should have, but don't pretend that's not what you wanted. It's called 'basic campaigning', and yes, I would have absolutely liked her to do some of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:There is literally nothing to help those people that Clinton could have passed through a congress where the house was Republican controlled lol Now here's a radical idea. Maybe by having a solidly organized party on the state level and an actually popular candidate running an actually good presidential campaign, the Democrats could have won the House. Sounds crazy, I know, but still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Everyone thought trump's attacks on women would lose him the election in a landslide. Including reince priebus, who tried to get him to drop out in October.quote:Some Trump advisers are dismayed by Priebus’s influence because they question the Washington insider’s loyalty to the president-elect. Three sources told me that shortly after the Access Hollywood tape leaked in early October, Priebus went to Trump’s penthouse and advised the candidate to get out of the race. Priebus told Trump that if he didn’t, he “will go down with a worse election loss than Barry Goldwater’s,” a person briefed on the conversation said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
in retrospect it was incredibly stupid to think that a little thing like sexual assault could overcome partisan polarization
HannibalBarca fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Everyone thought trump's attacks on women would lose him the election in a landslide. Including reince priebus, who tried to get him to drop out in October. Basically, no one in either party establishment thought the American public was quite as credulous, moronic and petulant and they ended up being. Welp, guess we won't be making that mistake again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:There is literally nothing to help those people that Clinton could have passed through a congress where the house was Republican controlled lol Might as well not even try then
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
People like theflyingorc and Hobologist defending the HRC campaign because of the polling strike me as the MBS quants defending their modeling of securities - this was only forecasted to happen "once in 2,000 years"! And the funniest thing is that in both cases, a failure to factor in correlations did both groups in (correlated states and correlated defaults).
shrike82 fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Violator posted:Personal anecdote time! I've got a buddy who got his bachelor degree in history about ten years ago who has flopped between constant unemployment and teaching jobs he hates because he can't find a job he likes. I have told him (as have others) that he needs to take steps to make himself more hirable by companies, be that in continuing his education, upgrading his skill sets in real world scenarios, or starting low on the totem pole and working his way up. But he won't do it. He put in those four years, and God damnit he deserves a well paying career and will wait until he finds it. This has been going on for a decade. how much additional debt would your friend have to sink himself into to "make himself more hireable by companies"? my brother just graduated and he's coming out with 80k worth of debt for it. i can see why your friend might not be amenable to gambling massive debt on another degree that could end up worthless in short order
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Everyone thought trump's attacks on women would lose him the election in a landslide. Including reince priebus, who tried to get him to drop out in October. If the election were held in the middle of October it probably would have been that landslide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:If the election were held in the middle of October it probably would have been that landslide. The last debate used to be much closer to election day. Which probably would have changed the result.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:If the election were held in the middle of October it probably would have been that landslide. You can understand the Clinton campaign's strategy, clearly they thought so too. All we need to do is keep reminding America this guy's a sexual predator! We'll devote our last messaging to that! but they overestimated the garbage rust belt electorate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You can understand the Clinton campaign's strategy, clearly they thought so too. All we need to do is keep reminding America this guy's a sexual predator! We'll devote our last messaging to that! but they overestimated the garbage rust belt electorate. If only the terrible garbage voters hadn't failed our glorious, super great candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how much additional debt would your friend have to sink himself into to "make himself more hireable by companies"? my brother just graduated and he's coming out with 80k worth of debt for it. i can see why your friend might not be amenable to gambling massive debt on another degree that could end up worthless in short order Good point, but I don't know what you do because you can't sit around stagnating while the world passes you by.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
LGD posted:If only the terrible garbage voters hadn't failed our glorious, super great candidate. I'm quite comfortable describing someone who voted for trump despite clear evidence of multiple sexual assaults as a piece of poo poo. you're clearly comfortable acting as their white knight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The Nazi party sort of won a parliamentary election, but in Can someone fill me in how hitler went from losing the election to gaining power?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:01
|
|
's only presidential election he lost badly to Paul von Hindenburg, who was 84 and didn't want to be president but sought a second term only to keep Hitler from taking power (it didn't work).
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm quite comfortable describing someone who voted for trump despite clear evidence of multiple sexual assaults as a piece of poo poo. you're clearly comfortable acting as their white knight.  ok person who claims to sincerely want to do data-driven driven analysis of the reason for the election loss
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:There is no point having a self-driving truck if you have to put a warm body in it. No savings. They only do that now because self-driving cars are in *beta* and not really capable of driving themselves. And more importantly, because traffic laws say that there must be a qualified driver in a vehicle. Assuming that they will roll out fleets of self-driving trucks with depressed truckers in them doing nothing is like assuming the local building site will still have scaffolding up when the houses are finished and sold. As soon as they are legally capable of driving themselves, the drivers will be gone. At least where I work, truck drivers still need to come in the building and sign paperwork and get placards and such I don't think they'll go away barring Trump striking every DOT regulation
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Might as well not even try then personally I can't imagine how the Democrats could be seeing low turnout on their longstanding 'I literally can't imagine how to do anything positive for anyone in the real world, put us in power anyway' platform
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm quite comfortable describing someone who voted for trump despite clear evidence of multiple sexual assaults as a piece of poo poo. you're clearly comfortable acting as their white knight. Gee I wonder why people think sexual assault is presidential....assuming of course every allegation is true which only a moron would believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm quite comfortable describing someone who voted for trump despite clear evidence of multiple sexual assaults as a piece of poo poo. you're clearly comfortable acting as their white knight. If not then how do you justify that double standard? Hillary is more of a destructive amoral monster than Trump by any objective measure, so does it just come down to which evils hit closer to home?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Violator posted:Personal anecdote time! Honestly, I don't blame your friend. You say that he believes his four years at college entitles him to a good job. And why would he think that? Because that is exactly what everyone told him. For decades that was what everyone believed, and for decades it was true. For his grandparent's generation a college degree, any degree, was a ticket to success. For his parent's generation it was a similar story. But it's not for his generation. And yet, for 30+ years every single cog in the education machine has been encouraging every student to get a college degree, and discouraging every student from taking basically any other path. Many students show up to college with no real direction or inclination to be there other than seeing it as the natural thing an adult should do after high school. If he got his degree 10 years ago then he wasn't much ahead of me and I remember how it was. Everyone said go to college. Parents, teachers, professionals. Everyone. And they weren't particular with the advice. Nobody said "go to college but oh make sure it's a STEM a degree", or "go to college but makes sure it's a prestigious university with so and so programs". It was just "go to college, and you will be successful'. And it was wrong. So I want you to try, and I mean really try, to see it from his perspective. He did what he was supposed to do. He did what everyone told him would lead to a prosperous career, and it failed. So tell me why then should he listen to you when you say that he should further his education, or upgrade his skill set, or "start low and work his way up"? Was it not already proven him to that the advice people say will lead to success is not reliable? That is the fact of economics today. Nothing can be trusted. Nothing can be relied upon. Promises will not pay out. Maybe he could get a higher degree. But that's just doubling down on something that has already failed him and I don't think anyone could blame him for not wanting to do that. "Upgrading his skills" is too nebulous to mean anything but in any case probably involves working or learning without pay (or paying for some type of training himself) for a payoff that may never come. It's just another roll of loaded dice. He could try to work his way up somewhere, but we come back to initial problem. Workers in the current economy cannot rely on behind rewarded for their effort. Many people work low jobs and simply stay there forever. If we lived in a time where putting time at a company naturally led to careers and pensions then "start low and work up" would be sage advise. But we live in a time where it instead leads to "stagnate, get overworked for low pay, and dumped the first instant it becomes more convenient than keeping you". People don't trust companies to reward loyalty with loyalty, and they shouldn't. So yes, there are many things he could do. And he could do all of them and end up nowhere for it. That is the source of everyone's angst and anger of the economy. And right now nobody has any advice to help these people that doesn't boil down to "make an additional sacrifice now, and you will be rewarded for it later".
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
LGD posted:
Hillary lost because her economic messaging failed to connect with voters. That's what the data shows. The policies were popular, but the messaging didn't connect. This is what the data suggests.Her strategy was flawed because she thought it would be enough that her opponent was a serial sexual predator, so that's what she ran ads about. She lost because she overestimated the garbage rust belt electorate. If you voted for the serial sexual predator, you're a garbage person. If you stayed home because you didn't care about a serial sexual predator winning the election, you're a garbage person. Had Hillary, instead of appealing to their human decency, described how her plans would benefit the garbage rust belt electorate financially, she would have won. When formulating our approach to the garbage rust belt electorate in the future, it would behoove us to remember they are, in fact, garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
this is all true but it's worth noting that just about everyone else who went to college for the last ~decade or so ended up in the exact same boat, it was real lovely, the ones who fell for it twice and got a graduate degree largely ended up double-hosed, and most of em still figured out how to get a loving life regardless at some point in the last decade. that guy is uniquely poorly adjusted for adult life, and he's not particularly representative of poo poo - Trump's support base did not come from serially unemployed humanities graduates any more than it came from the KKK or laid-off steelworkers. I have idiot conspiracy theorist slacker buddies who lean Democrat but I doubt anyone here would take their perspective as the secret of that outlandish and legendary beast, the D voter, somehow A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:25 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Hillary lost because her economic messaging failed to connect with voters. That's what the data shows. The policies were popular, but the messaging didn't connect. This is what the data suggests.Her strategy was flawed because she thought it would be enough that her opponent was a serial sexual predator, so that's what she ran ads about. So glad people like you are being purged from the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:23
|
|