BrandorKP posted:

No, but they will throw wrenches (big goddamn ones think over 2" sized) if they think one is a scab.

I on the other hand will sing sea shanties. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...szZItnzQt4fcrqQ

Here's the short explanation of what is going on on some of these old bulk terminals. You have a piece of capital equipment. It's long ago been paid off, has fully depriciated on the books, can't be sold for anything other than scrap (it might actually cost a great deal of money to scrap, maybe asbestos or something else). But the maintenance is not horrific yet, you have labor that might keep it running indefinately. Every now and then markets workout where you can gouge the hell out of someone by firing it up. Alternately everything else around you has failed and you're the only reasonable place to pickup a backhaul load.

On the container side, I think it is mostly that we don't have strong port authorities in most places in the us. The carriers have the upper hand in negotiations. Terminals don't like to spend money on automation if an alliance will gently caress them over come contract negotiations. They then blame this on labor, because you know it can't possibly be our fault. The places in the US where it's less terrible and there is actual progress have well run, state run, port authorities. Oddly enough that's often in deeply red areas.

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.

The industry most affected by automation is manufacturing. For every robot per thousand workers, up to six workers lost their jobs and wages fell by as much as three-fourths of a percent, according to a new paper by the economists, Daron Acemoglu of M.I.T. and Pascual Restrepo of Boston University. It appears to be the first study to quantify large, direct, negative effects of robots.

The paper is all the more significant because the researchers, whose work is highly regarded in their field, had been more sanguine about the effect of technology on jobs. In a paper last year, they said it was likely that increased automation would create new, better jobs, so employment and wages would eventually return to their previous levels. Just as cranes replaced dockworkers but created related jobs for engineers and financiers, the theory goes, new technology has created new jobs for software developers and data analysts.

But that paper was a conceptual exercise. The new one uses real-world data — and suggests a more pessimistic future. The researchers said they were surprised to see very little employment increase in other occupations to offset the job losses in manufacturing. That increase could still happen, they said, but for now there are large numbers of people out of work, with no clear path forward — especially blue-collar men without college degrees.

“The conclusion is that even if overall employment and wages recover, there will be losers in the process, and it’s going to take a very long time for these communities to recover,” Mr. Acemoglu said.

“If you’ve worked in Detroit for 10 years, you don’t have the skills to go into health care,” he said. “The market economy is not going to create the jobs by itself for these workers who are bearing the brunt of the change.”

Mozi posted:

Here's an article I thought was relevant.

Evidence That Robots Are Winning the Race for American Jobs


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.

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.

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.

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.

Mozi posted:

Here's an article I thought was relevant.

Evidence That Robots Are Winning the Race for American Jobs


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.

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.

Boon posted:

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

call to action posted:

It is unbelievably disingenuous to compare people skeptical of creative destruction to climate deniers.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

Boon posted:

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?

Like "guy with absolutely zero job security in any direction loses job" isn't exactly something you can prevent by stopping technology from existing.

call to action posted:

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?

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?

call to action posted:

Actually I said that belief in creative destruction isn't comparable to climate skepticism, try looking up

call to action posted:

Still not getting it

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.

God you're terrible.

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.

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.

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.

Paradoxish posted:

The fall off after recessions is normal. The fact that we're not reaching previous peaks during recoveries isn't.

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paradoxish posted:

Nobody is "blaming" robots for anything because that's an absurd idea in the first place.