|
BrandorKP posted:No, but they will throw wrenches (big goddamn ones think over 2" sized) if they think one is a scab. Interesting. The big northern european ports all have well-run and state backed port authorities (to the point of declaring areas connecting rival ports protected nature), but competition is really fierce. All of the northern atlantic and north sea ones can serve the german industrial heartland. Automation was done not only to reduce costs, but also to push reliability into the 99% range. If there's one thing germans can't handle it's their shipment of model train parts arriving a day late and robots don't strike.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 21:11 |
|
|
# ? May 8, 2024 05:56 |
|
Here's an article I thought was relevant. Evidence That Robots Are Winning the Race for American Jobs quote:Who is winning the race for jobs between robots and humans? Last year, two leading economists described a future in which humans come out ahead. But now they’ve declared a different winner: the robots. So, it turns out that robots do decrease jobs and wages, and the jobs that they do create aren't obtainable for the newly jobless.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 21:33 |
|
Mozi posted:Here's an article I thought was relevant. This was an interesting tidbit from that article: quote:The paper adds to the evidence that automation, more than other factors like trade and offshoring that President Trump campaigned on, has been the bigger long-term threat to blue-collar jobs. The researchers said the findings — “large and robust negative effects of robots on employment and wages” — remained strong even after controlling for imports, offshoring, software that displaces jobs, worker demographics and the type of industry. They came to the conclusion that automation is having a negative impact on employment and wages in manufacturing without even considering job losses due to software. It's interesting that these effects are showing up even when you take a narrow view of automation that literally only includes robots, although I suspect that's probably only true in manufacturing and maybe warehousing/logistics.
|
# ? Mar 28, 2017 22:20 |
|
call to action posted:I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure land use extent and total gallons of water consumed aren't exactly great indicators for the health of the environment, nor its ability to sustain anything in the future. I get that you believe it's an unqualified social good that Chinese pigs are smashed tighter than ever before as they're loaded with antibiotics of last resort, but to me, that's not a good thing. Well let me clarify the science for you, land and water usage is a major indicator of impact to the environment in agriculture.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 00:21 |
|
Paradoxish posted:The paper adds to the evidence that automation, more than other factors like trade and offshoring that President Trump campaigned on, has been the bigger long-term threat to blue-collar jobs. Comrades, it is not the immigrants that are the problem it is the intellectuals that are our enemy.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 16:47 |
|
Mozi posted:Here's an article I thought was relevant. That's not the conclusion to draw from this. I tried to look up the paper but it is paywalled. However, such studies will always discuss their limitations and potentials for hidden variables. It's more likely, but you've not taken that nuance into account, you've taken it as a certainty (and likely will state that to others if left unchallenged). Drawing a certain conclusion from a single study is also a really bad idea.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 16:51 |
|
ElCondemn posted:Well let me clarify the science for you, land and water usage is a major indicator of impact to the environment in agriculture. Yeah and "total land use" is an unbelievably lovely proxy for "land and water usage". Turns out that subsistence farming with hand tools and modern agribusiness don't use an acre of land in the same way.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 17:40 |
|
Boon posted:That's not the conclusion to draw from this. "The study, a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper published Monday, used data on the number of robots from the International Federation of Robotics (there is no consistent data on the monetary value of the robots in use.) It analyzed the effect of robots on employment and wages in commuting zones, a way to measure local economies." Seems that they kept it purposefully straightfoward and simple. The authors previously believed that " it was likely that increased automation would create new, better jobs, so employment and wages would eventually return to their previous levels." However, when they looked at actual data, "they were surprised to see very little employment increase in other occupations to offset the job losses in manufacturing." People talk about jobs being created as they are made obsolete, but that is very general and abstract. Actual numbers prove that the storylines don't add up. No scientific study can be taken as gospel truth but you're purposefully trying to muddy the waters to distract from the clear results they did produce.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 18:12 |
|
I'm sure the old-rear end, untrainable truck drivers really did get good new jobs in the city and lived happily ever after, we just didn't control for the right variables
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 18:43 |
|
Mozi posted:"The study, a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper published Monday, used data on the number of robots from the International Federation of Robotics (there is no consistent data on the monetary value of the robots in use.) It analyzed the effect of robots on employment and wages in commuting zones, a way to measure local economies." I get that and I'm not disputing the conclusion of a single study. What I'm saying is that even the authors would tell you that following studies controlling for different variables will either construct or refute their findings. This is basic academics and drawing certainty from a single point, ESPECIALLY, when it contradicts previous thoughts, is a fundamental misunderstanding of how this works. You could find multiple studies disputing climate science, would you then immediately claim certainty that it's not real?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 18:45 |
|
Boon posted:I get that and I'm not disputing the conclusion of a single study. What I'm saying is that even the authors would tell you that following studies controlling for different variables will either construct or refute their findings. It is unbelievably disingenuous to compare people skeptical of creative destruction to climate deniers.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 18:57 |
|
What you say about scientific papers in general is true, but given that the data changed the researcher's initial hypothesis, I am more given to believe it as opposed to the kind of vague theorizing that I was aware of prior. That said, couching everything as 'this study claims X fact' would have avoided this digression. I did dig up the paper, and the details and math are very much over my head, but this section seemed relevant: "To bolster confidence in our interpretation, we show that our estimates remain negative and significant when we control for broad industry composition (including shares of manufacturing, durables, and construction), for detailed demographics, and for competing factors impacting workers in commuting zones—in particular, exposure to imports from China (as in Autor, Dorn and Hanson, 2013), exposure to imports from Mexico, the decline in routine jobs following the use of software to perform information processing tasks (as in Autor and Dorn, 2013), and offshoring of intermediate inputs (based on Feenstra and Hanson, 1999; and Wright, 2014). We also document that our measure of exposure to robots is unrelated to past trends in employment and wages from 1970 to 1990, a period that preceded the onset of rapid advances in robotics technology circa 1990. Several robustness checks further support our interpretation. First, we find no similar negative impact from other measures of IT and capital (thus partly motivating our focus on robots). Second, we show that the automobile industry, which uses the largest number of robots per worker, is not driving our results. Third, we document that the results are robust to including differential trends by various baseline characteristics, linear commuting zone trends, and potentially mean-reverting dynamics in employment and wages. We also document that the employment effects of robots are most pronounced in manufacturing, and in particular, in industries most exposed to robots; in routine manual, blue collar, assembly and related occupations; and for workers with less than college education. Interestingly, and perhaps surprisingly, we do not find positive and offsetting employment gains in any occupation or education groups. We further document that the effects of robots on men and women are similar, though the impact on male employment is more negative." Mozi fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Mar 29, 2017 |
# ? Mar 29, 2017 19:03 |
It seems to match reality, is the thing. If a factory in Flint lays off 500 high school graduates earning $30 an hour they won't instantly get degrees in STEM or nursing. The assumptions people make about productivity take a lot for granted. Like jobs made redundant thru software will get replaced somehow even though they can reduce the need for labor across the board. And that there weren't social factors keeping people out of the labor pool in the past, vs the present where everyone working is the expected norm.
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 19:08 |
|
call to action posted:It is unbelievably disingenuous to compare people skeptical of creative destruction to climate deniers. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 19:11 |
|
RandomPauI posted:It seems to match reality, is the thing. If a factory in Flint lays off 500 high school graduates earning $30 an hour they won't instantly get degrees in STEM or nursing. Even if we become space amish and lock our culture to only allow 1998 technology eternally do you actually think they wouldn't just fire the 30 dollar an hour highschool graduates and hire either some sort of better qualified for the price 30 dollar an hour college (trade school?) graduates that had even more training or 15 dollar an hour highschool graduates eventually? Like "guy with absolutely zero job security in any direction loses job" isn't exactly something you can prevent by stopping technology from existing.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 19:52 |
|
call to action posted:Yeah and "total land use" is an unbelievably lovely proxy for "land and water usage". Turns out that subsistence farming with hand tools and modern agribusiness don't use an acre of land in the same way. Yeah, good point, I'm sure you'll be first in line to become a subsistence farmer. I'm sure your family won't mind the endemic hunger and famine conditions that are prevalent with that model of agriculture. But hey, maybe you won't notice how hungry you are since all your time will be spent farming, or you'll die from starvation after the first famine. Personally I'm against regressing our modern society to an agrarian society where people die of hunger regularly. I suppose to you it makes sense that the average person would have at least an acre of land to feed a family of about 4, as long as they move to a climate that has fertile land and access to clean water. Mozi posted:"The study, a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper published Monday, used data on the number of robots from the International Federation of Robotics (there is no consistent data on the monetary value of the robots in use.) It analyzed the effect of robots on employment and wages in commuting zones, a way to measure local economies." If I understood it correctly I think they're saying the jobs lost to automation don't create new jobs that the people who lost their jobs would be able to do. I don't think that's what people are saying when they talk about creation of jobs through automation though. It's not like a factory worker is going to just become a robotics engineer overnight, the idea is that their kids will become the engineers. Those people go on to do menial jobs, but the younger generation takes the more skilled work as it's created. So the old jobs die out, and new ones replace them. If this weren't the case wouldn't we see a pretty direct correlation with unemployment and automation? Wouldn't we see the number of jobs dropping instead of growing essentially in tandem with population growth?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 19:55 |
|
ElCondemn posted:If I understood it correctly I think they're saying the jobs lost to automation don't create new jobs that the people who lost their jobs would be able to do. I don't think that's what people are saying when they talk about creation of jobs through automation though. It's not like a factory worker is going to just become a robotics engineer overnight, the idea is that their kids will become the engineers. Nobody is going to become the engineer. When everyone was a farmer and farm automation replaced that 100 years ago we didn't all just become tractor repairmen and irrigation specialists. The new labor force freed from doing farm work went off and did other things unrelated to farming. Your new job is going to be daycare for cats or something.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 20:01 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like "guy with absolutely zero job security in any direction loses job" isn't exactly something you can prevent by stopping technology from existing. Why do you think that the response to automation costing jobs should be stopping technology from existing? You seem to be working backwards from the conclusion that technology is good so therefore there aren't ever any negative effects from technological progress. Like, we can talk about technology potentially leading to net job loss without then reaching the conclusion that technology is evil and must be stopped. edit- ElCondemn posted:Those people go on to do menial jobs, but the younger generation takes the more skilled work as it's created. So the old jobs die out, and new ones replace them. If this weren't the case wouldn't we see a pretty direct correlation with unemployment and automation? Wouldn't we see the number of jobs dropping instead of growing essentially in tandem with population growth? There are a couple of things here. First, employment growth actually isn't following population growth. There's a small but significant decreasing trend in prime age labor participation over the last couple of decades. We are losing people from the labor force. I'm not going to make the claim that the drop is being caused by automation, but it is happening. Second, and more to the point, long term unemployment isn't actually an option in our society. Nobody wants to be out of a job for long if they aren't independently wealthy, so people who lose their jobs for any reason and can't get another one are going to eventually fall back work that doesn't pay as much. If you want to look at employment and automation you have to look at specific sectors, like manufacturing, and not the economy as a whole. The point where the unemployment floor is permanently increasing is the point where we're already hosed. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 29, 2017 |
# ? Mar 29, 2017 20:14 |
|
A stupid response from a dumb poster, what a surprise Like what exactly is the theory here, if immigration doesn't hurt the working class and automation doesn't either, why are they struggling? Karmic payback from decades of toxic masculinity? call to action fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Mar 29, 2017 |
# ? Mar 29, 2017 20:48 |
|
To be fair, his basic point was correct in that presenting the results of any single study as revealed truth in a vacuum is bad form. Let's just move on.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 20:51 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Even if we become space amish and lock our culture to only allow 1998 technology eternally do you actually think they wouldn't just fire the 30 dollar an hour highschool graduates and hire either some sort of better qualified for the price 30 dollar an hour college (trade school?) graduates that had even more training or 15 dollar an hour highschool graduates eventually? No, it's something you can prevent by changing the nature of our society so that the long-term unemployed that technology will inevitably create aren't uninsured, homeless, and miserable.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 20:59 |
|
New York times article on how Automation is currently on the rise in the US. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/...WT.nav=top-news There's also another thing to consider: Not just automation, but consolidation. This happens a lot in IT, where entire sections are whittled down to just one or two people, and its happening in manufacturing too, where employees are being expected, more and more, to take on more workload without increase in pay.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 21:14 |
|
call to action posted:A stupid response from a dumb poster, what a surprise Mozi got it, have you asked yourself why you didn't? Like, you took an absurd example, meant to illustrate absurdity in previous posts, literally, and then got obtuse about it. Your self-righteous indignation is pretty funny to me in light of it. Is that not worthy?
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 21:25 |
|
Boon posted:Mozi got it, have you asked yourself why you didn't? Like, you took an absurd example, meant to illustrate absurdity in previous posts, literally, and then got obtuse about it. Your self-righteous indignation is pretty funny to me in light of it. Is that not worthy? Actually I said that belief in creative destruction isn't comparable to climate skepticism, try looking up
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 21:29 |
|
call to action posted:Actually I said that belief in creative destruction isn't comparable to climate skepticism, try looking up That's not what "creative destruction" generally means.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 21:35 |
|
call to action posted:Still not getting it I was going to seriously respond, then I noticed your reg date, checked your rap sheet, and realized that I'd been made a sucker of. God you're terrible.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 21:44 |
|
Boon posted:I was going to seriously respond, then I noticed your reg date, checked your rap sheet, and realized that I'd been made a sucker of. Yeah you are a sucker, that's for sure
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 21:47 |
|
Paradoxish posted:First, employment growth actually isn't following population growth. There's a small but significant decreasing trend in prime age labor participation over the last couple of decades. We are losing people from the labor force. I'm not going to make the claim that the drop is being caused by automation, but it is happening. I don't know where you're getting your data from but I don't see anything that backs up your claim. According to all the data I'm seeing the employment to population ratio actually seems to be growing... probably due to more women entering the workforce than ever before. Wikipedia has a nice table, but you can look up the sources from the bureau of labor statistics and other sources yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio#Employment-to-population_ratio_in_the_world Paradoxish posted:Second, and more to the point, long term unemployment isn't actually an option in our society. Nobody wants to be out of a job for long if they aren't independently wealthy, so people who lose their jobs for any reason and can't get another one are going to eventually fall back work that doesn't pay as much. If you want to look at employment and automation you have to look at specific sectors, like manufacturing, and not the economy as a whole. The point where the unemployment floor is permanently increasing is the point where we're already hosed. The data shows despite increases in efficiency and automation employment is increasing, so I don't think we're seeing an excess of long term unemployment (employment to population ratio does not adjust for types of unemployment unlike unemployment rate). Certainly it may be the case that previously well paid employees are having to fall back to lower paid work, but I wouldn't blame automation for that, that's just a feature of capitalism. I think the best solution is to reduce working hours for employees and increasing the pay rate, that way we can transition to a less work focused society gracefully.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 21:51 |
|
Automation and software development isn't just eliminating rock bottom jobs. At least where I live it's hitting mid level people with 2 year degrees hard. They CAN be retrained, just no company is going to do it for 40 year olds when the replacement jobs are in different fields and different cities. A college educated engineer + pet drone + collaborative development suite + 5000 sensors and a videoconference link is making a draftsman, secretary and dude doing fieldwork obsolete. The last place I worked at was working on automating permitting. They are hoping to replace several paper pushers by one college educated person managing the information system and taking responsibility for the hard cases. Of course it's government so it will probably backfire horribly, but anyone complaining about robots replacing immigrants replacing the uneducated for unpacking boxes is kind of missing the point.
|
# ? Mar 29, 2017 22:56 |
|
ElCondemn posted:I don't know where you're getting your data from but I don't see anything that backs up your claim. According to all the data I'm seeing the employment to population ratio actually seems to be growing... probably due to more women entering the workforce than ever before. I'm assuming we're talking about the US, in which case: code:
The fall off after recessions is normal. The fact that we're not reaching previous peaks during recoveries isn't. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Mar 30, 2017 |
# ? Mar 30, 2017 00:32 |
|
Paradoxish posted:The fall off after recessions is normal. The fact that we're not reaching previous peaks during recoveries isn't. Which is why it sucks a lot when dummies start to look at the billionaire employers who engineered that and fall like dummies when they point at a bunch of scientists and researchers and whatever and say "THEY DID IT!" with one hand and then point to a bunch of hispanic people and immigrants with the other hand and say "THEY DID IT" and everyone just goes "sounds right" and leaves the person that actually did it alone.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 00:49 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Which is why it sucks a lot when dummies start to look at the billionaire employers who engineered that and fall like dummies when they point at a bunch of scientists and researchers and whatever and say "THEY DID IT!" with one hand and then point to a bunch of hispanic people and immigrants with the other hand and say "THEY DID IT" and everyone just goes "sounds right" and leaves the person that actually did it alone. Oh for sure dude, structural causes of decreasing employment are exactly the same thing as racism. You ever get sick of being, well, you?
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 00:52 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:Oh for sure dude, structural causes of decreasing employment are exactly the same thing as racism. You ever get sick of being, well, you? It's a choose your own adventure, 'they' don't care if you pick aliens or terminators according to your own personal tastes as the boogie man ruining your way of life as long as you never blame Weyland-Yutani or Cyberdyne
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 01:12 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a choose your own adventure, 'they' don't care if you pick aliens or terminators as the boogie man ruining your way of life as long as you never blame Weyland-Yutani or Cyberdyne Do "they" also try to enslave people's minds with fluoride in the water and notions like "historical materialism"? Do you often find yourself muttering the phrases "Purity of Essence" and "Peace on Earth" under your breath?
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 01:14 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:Do "they" also try to enslave people's minds with fluoride in the water and notions like "historical materialism"? Do you often find yourself muttering the phrases "Purity of Essence" and "Peace on Earth" under your breath? It really is the future when I am being called a conspiracy nut when I am blaming poor employment conditions on employers instead of on a robot uprising.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 01:15 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It really is the future when I am being called a conspiracy nut when I am blaming poor employment conditions on employers instead of on a robot uprising. You're being called a conspiracy nut, by me, because you are transparently a fruitcake, cuckoo for cocoa puffs, etc. Specifically, your argument is that any apparent structural causes of unemployment are due to the billionaires manipulating our minds, possibly because you gently caress and ejaculate inside your computer's USB ports on a twice daily basis.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 01:19 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It really is the future when I am being called a conspiracy nut when I am blaming poor employment conditions on employers instead of on a robot uprising. It's almost as if it's possible to talk about one thing (automation) while acknowledging that there are other, more indirect issues (weak worker protections, a toxic culture built around employment, insufficient safety nets) that cause the first thing to be an actual problem. You're the only person here freaking out and assigning blame. Nobody is "blaming" robots for anything because that's an absurd idea in the first place.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 01:22 |
|
Brainiac Five posted:Specifically, your argument is that any apparent structural causes of unemployment are due to the billionaires manipulating our minds, possibly because you gently caress and ejaculate inside your computer's USB ports on a twice daily basis. The president of the united states is literally a billionaire that literally goes on tv and tells people mexicans stole your job. They aren't using psychic mind control, they are just saying it and people are going "yeah okay", and it's just a different message on who stole the jobs based on the audience.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 01:25 |
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The president of the united states is literally a billionaire that literally goes on tv and tells people mexicans stole your job. They aren't using psychic mind control, they are just saying it and people are going "yeah okay", and it's just a different message on who stole the jobs based on the audience. So how do imported robots fit into this paradigm? Please pull out of your robot "girlfriend" for a moment and give me a solid answer to that. Then I want to know how the billionaires can just eliminate jobs if automation doesn't save labor.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 01:26 |
|
|
# ? May 8, 2024 05:56 |
|
Paradoxish posted:Nobody is "blaming" robots for anything because that's an absurd idea in the first place. No, you are right, no one REALLY blames the machines, it is really just regular old anti-intellectualism, and a disdain for the stem fields and developers and inventors and that sort of educated. But people have a distaste for admitting that and will push that they absolutely love researchers and pull out some researcher or engineer from their ancestors 150 years ago or whatever that was good.
|
# ? Mar 30, 2017 01:35 |