|
INH5 posted:Here's an idea: how about we take a look at what job fields are actually expected to grow the most over the next decade or so. Here are the top ten from the Bureau of Labor Statistics: The boom in 1, 2, 3, and 6 isn't viable long-term growth. It's just a temporary demand spike for demographic reasons, and won't be around for more than a couple of decades. As you've said, 4, 8, and 10 are likely to be automated away. So that just leaves "salesperson", "customer service rep", and "manager" - not exactly reassuring for our economic future! Cicero posted:Yes and no. Yes, factories that made farm equipment displaced those jobs. But those wouldn't make up the majority of factories, obviously, people got jobs at factories making other stuff too. The important thing is that people just desired more and more stuff, that factories created. I think we still have a ways to go with people wanting more services that are difficult to handle without humans. It's not just that people wanted more stuff, it's that people were able to buy more stuff for a variety of reasons, including government-funded infrastructure expansions and improving conditions for workers. And just as importantly, new markets opened during that same period, as the same technologies that led to the Industrial Revolution also led to the beginning of modern globalization. Not only could factories produce things faster than ever before, but they could also export more than ever before, and worldwide political developments meant that this particularly favored the US, which got to spend much of the first half of the twentieth century selling goods to war-ravaged Europe.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Cicero posted:Does it? I mean we still make food and clothes and housing, but we also make a bunch of things that didn't exist then: for example, almost the entire entertainment/media industry didn't really exist 200 years ago, only exceptions would be what, plays, live music, newspapers? No TVs or movies or video games or radio. It's all the same if you're taking a broad view of the economy, though. Sure, you didn't have video games or TV, but you did have people employed in entertainment or content creation and those people were part of the service economy. Like, the basic point I was making is that the idea of three sectors still holds up. You've got: 1) People conducting agriculture and various forms of raw resource extraction. 2) People producing goods. 3) People selling goods to and providing services for consumers and organizations. You can break the third one up into knowledge-based work and entertainment if you really want to, but in general terms the role those people are playing in the larger economy is the same as ever. There have always been people who develop new technologies and new tools, there have always been people who provide financial services, there have always been entertainers, there have always been people who sell goods, etc. As people have moved from manufacturing into service (and as technology has developed) we've had a wider variety of those roles to fill, but the exact same thing happened with manufacturing as we transitioned away from agriculture. Automation isn't a bunch of separate events where one industry dies and a new one appears - it's one long, continuous process that's been on going for centuries. I'm not saying that there's going to literally be nothing of value left for anyone to do, but there aren't an infinite number of new services to be provided either and people don't have infinite resources to spend on them. Meanwhile, a lot of the jobs that are probably going to be in demand for a long time (retail employees, restaurant employees, home health care aides, etc.) are way down on the lower end of the pay scale compared to the jobs that are slowly being bled off. Edit- As a little bit of an aside, I think you can see this effect with some tech startups. You have a lot of companies that aren't able to easily turn a profit because the marginal value of their services are too low to easily monetize. It's not enough to just provide a new service, you also need to provide enough value to turn a profit. If you can't do that then your technology isn't really creating more jobs over the long term. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Dec 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I honestly see widespread mass murder as more likely to happen over the idea that a small portion of the population will own/control everything yet subsidize everybody else to live their normal life unencumbered. What you're suggesting is outside of human nature and completely unprecedented. 400 years ago the notion that every piece of land was privately owned was unprecedented. Land used to be held in common and its use was distributed based on the needs of the people living near it. The idea that the the modern distribution of capital is eternal and unchanging is very incorrect. As automation became a thing, so did the concept of private ownership expand to include everything, as automation progresses, so necessarily will the concept of private ownership become impractical. It only functions as a tool to compel participation in the production chain, without a need for that, people cease to work, cease to be paid, cease to buy the things being produced. Automation is sought because capitalists desire ever greater profit but in so doing they eventually will destroy the market for their products. It's simply not sustainable, what will replace it is undecided, but the idea that it can endure as is is farcical. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's simply not sustainable, what will replace it is undecided, but the idea that it can endure as is is farcical. Charlie did offer one replacement for it, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
A production capacity of an entire country cannot sell to only the owners of that production capacity, it's designed to fill the needs of an entire country of people, even if you shot everyone who isn't rich you'd still end up needing to completely change what you make and how much of it you make.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Really really hope OP comes back soon because I can't wait either! I'm not an expert on telephone exchanges, but I think there's too many phone numbers now to do it like in the olde-timey sepia photographs with the ladies and the wires. I just don't think it's feasible
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm not an expert on telephone exchanges, but I think there's too many phone numbers now to do it like in the olde-timey sepia photographs with the ladies and the wires. I just don't think it's feasible So what you're saying is we need to put a legal cap on how many phones there are
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:08
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So what you're saying is we need to put a legal cap on how many phones there are No, that's stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
In addition to other reasons given for "why we don't just ban self-driving trucks," there's also the reason that truckers are largely disliked and out of all of the groups that might get some sort of protectionist representation as a result of some group spending political capital, it won't be them. Right now, the most influential organizations speaking on the behalf of the trucking industry are right wing and very capital-friendly, which means if there's some development in technology that makes a company's investment less costly, they'll be more than willing to sell out the actual labor. Something as minor as hours of service rules changes from years and years ago that require electronic logging and also that prevent companies from planning 34 hour resets in a way where truckers' sleep schedules get hosed up has been fought tooth and nail for years with the rules still not finalized because of all the blocking. Liberals tend to look down on truckers since it's seen as a low-class occupation and draws its workforce disproportionately from "flyover states" where trucking is one of the only skilled occupations in many areas. At best, a favorable image of a trucker is based on convoy, a movie from the 70s (and this image is completely obsolete following the deregulation of the industry in 1980 to the clinton years. this lead to a boom in the number of companies there were, putting more trucks on the road which depresses wages for truckers, and brought about a more corporate-centered experience for truckers, as they're often referred to as "professional drivers" instead of "truckers" now. It's what some old truckers get at when they complain "trucking ain't what it used to be"). At worst, they're seen as loudmouth yokels who are constantly on meth or falling asleep at the wheel (which, while drowsiness is an issue, is probably the fault of companies who put pressure on drivers to run bad route plans. Both city and over the road truck drivers have far safer miles-per-accident statistics compared to car drivers). Liberals are not going to bat for individual truckers. Most regulations that are applied to the trucking industry mostly punish and leave responsibility to follow rules to individual drivers, because lol if liberals are going to ever going to grow spine necessary to hold capital accountable for anything. Since regulations target truckers punitively without trying to work with truckers or provide them incentives, most truckers' opinion of regulations is dim, to say the least. And for leftists, well there's no left-labor movement in the us and even less so for the trucking industry, truckers are largely not-unionized and often classified as contractors haha e: forgot that to serve as a counterpoint to liberals' image of truckers as yokels, some on the right have recently used the relative prevalence of first and second gen immigrants from the west coast involved with the trucking for anti-immigrant "we're losing our country" rhetoric targeted toward whites who live in places where there aren't many minorities but need a visible reminder of ~the dangers of multiculturalism~. Rightists would probably have no problem summoning that example if it ever came time to go whole hog on displacing a bunch of labor Rodatose fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:400 years ago the notion that every piece of land was privately owned was unprecedented. Land used to be held in common and its use was distributed based on the needs of the people living near it. If automation becomes so good that jobs are no longer needed than whoever owns/controls the sci fi robot factories and service AIs and whatnot can just produce for themselves and/or trade with the other people who control automation. Most laborers just kind of get cut out of the loop with nothing of value to exchange. Then we just have to hope the diffusion of the technology to regular people(or seizure by the luddite vanguard) happens before our automation lords come up with a modest proposal to put all the scary desperate people in the autonomous camps As always, the prudent solution for the individual is to build a paranoid compound and stockpile canned food
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The boom in 1, 2, 3, and 6 isn't viable long-term growth. It's just a temporary demand spike for demographic reasons, and won't be around for more than a couple of decades. As you've said, 4, 8, and 10 are likely to be automated away. So that just leaves "salesperson", "customer service rep", and "manager" - not exactly reassuring for our economic future! There's a lot of need for people in mental health care (working with people with severe autism for example) as carers, nurses and training to go with it, and that's a sector that is massively understaffed and not going away any time soon, so there's plenty of space in those sectors outside elderly care. The big issue here is that technology is moving us to a point beyond a need for capitalism as it functions now. The old system needed to regulate basic goods, as we didn't have the ability to provide and distribute to everyone. It also needed to provide incentives to do menial labour to make sure that labour was actually done. Technology is making is so those jobs are done, and that we can produce and distribute the basic needs in life to everyone. Now the key is transitioning into that as a society. We can make a push into projects that benefits society and community (such as looking after the elderly or people with mental health in the local community, or building things like parks, community centres, the kind of things that have declined in the last few decades) and we can use technology to reduce the cost of basic goods so that people don't need to work every hour of the day to support themselves. Use that social freedom to incentivise people to do things that can give them a sense of community pride and support their local environment. Obviously this is a massive change in how we look at jobs and working in society, and a massive change in how the power structure works so it wouldn't be a short term change but it's the way technology is pushing us. Really it is a good thing to be moving towards a possibility of more freedom in our lives to actually do things we want to do. Although we definitely need a way to support people, like the possibility of truck drivers losing jobs, in the interim. Banning technology is not the solution to that, providing retraining to move into other sectors is what I would go with but it's a difficult issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
(a little addition to my previous post) A good example of how regulations don't even attempt to work with truckers to find a passable solution to pressing problems is anti-idling laws. There's a legit environmental need to limit idling; diesel exhaust is disgusting and decreases lung capacity for people who grow up in places where there's lots of truck exhaust. However, truckers live in their trucks, and they have to deal with sub zero temperatures in the winter to 150+ degrees (with greenhouse effect) in deserts. So there's a need to run some sort of climate-control device somehow, so the people operating trucks don't die. The regulatory solution was anti-idling laws in some states, where individual truckers are ticketed for idling more than 5 minutes. The accommodation for truckers: private partnerships to set up electrification and external cooling units that pipe AC or heat into your window. In a limited number of truck stop locations, a trucker can pay $22 for 10 hours (2.19 for first 10 hours, 1.69 for any hour after that) to not feel like death. This usually comes out of pocket. Or, a trucker can just take advantage of the fact that fuel's often paid for by company, that enforcement isn't very common, and they'll just idle anyway. In the end the regulation fails to achieve its aim because you can't get in the way of a new market opportunity and provide it as a service for the public good!!! If driverless trucks for everything but the last few miles become prevalent, that'd reduce some of that problem without anyone having to actually talk to laborers and work with them in a way that benefits everybody
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
joe football posted:If automation becomes so good that jobs are no longer needed than whoever owns/controls the sci fi robot factories and service AIs and whatnot can just produce for themselves and/or trade with the other people who control automation. Most laborers just kind of get cut out of the loop with nothing of value to exchange. Then we just have to hope the diffusion of the technology to regular people(or seizure by the luddite vanguard) happens before our automation lords come up with a modest proposal to put all the scary desperate people in the autonomous camps The outcome where society evolves into a literal randian paradise where Great Men get to do battle with armies of robots and only their individual genius puts them above or below others, while the rest of the world turns into mad max gangs competing to scavenge what they can from the wreckage of robot battles, would still represent a major departure from society as it stands now. My argument is that automation is going to destroy how society functions currently. Considering that the current balance of wealthy owners of things having disproportionate power only works because everyone else buys into it, if you remove any reason or possibility for people to do that, you're going to destroy that system. It doesn't even have to be complete, it just has to be a critical mass of people for whom there are no jobs. Good luck trying to round up 20% of the country with nothing better to do than cause trouble because they have no buy in to the society you're trying to preserve. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:No, that's stupid. Sorry to hear that you don't care about the people who lost their jobs you heartless monster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Sorry to hear that you don't care about the people who lost their jobs you heartless monster. I'm pretty sure they're all dead by now
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm pretty sure they're all dead by now And one day all the truck drivers will be dead, so...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:And one day all the truck drivers will be dead, so... Oh sure, but we experience time linearly. In the current present, some people are still alive. I know this won't win me any popularity contests, but I support polices to help the living, even though they will eventually also be dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm pretty sure they're all dead by now Listen, my great grandfather was a soda jerk. My grandmother was a soda jerk. Why are you trying to destroy my people's way of life by supporting these good for nothing vending machines that do nothing but take away jobs from my people!? This is my heritage. (We can literally do this all day/night because your entire thesis is rather silly)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Listen, my great grandfather was a soda jerk. My grandmother was a soda jerk. Why are you trying to destroy my people's way of life by supporting these good for nothing vending machines that do nothing but take away jobs from my people!? This is my heritage. What? My thesis didn't involve vending machines machines. You would need a time machine to save soda jerks. What are you people talking about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Oh sure, but we experience time linearly. In the current present, some people are still alive. I know this won't win me any popularity contests, but I support polices to help the living, even though they will eventually also be dead. So, what do you actually want to do then? We pretty much already have the technology figured out, it's just proving it works and fixing minor kinks at this point. Do you want to just start putting arbitrary "expiration" dates on jobs at this point? On Jan. 1st 2040 you may finally catch up with the rest of the world and automate your trucking industry. On Jan. 1st 2045 fast food preparation jobs may be automated. ect ect Guy Goodbody posted:What? My thesis didn't involve vending machines machines. You would need a time machine to save soda jerks. What are you people talking about? The point is that the march of loving progress isn't going to wait for every last reluctant worker clinging to their job to decide to retire. We move on, we find something else or we change as a society. This is the story of the last ~200 years of human history, with an accelerating pace in the last century and it'd behoove you to get with the program. Trying to save jobs because they are "tradition" or because we are somehow afraid we won't be able to retrain all the people in those positions is just pointless feet dragging and a great way for a country to fall so far behind in the global economy it'll never catch up. Anubis fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Anubis posted:So, what do you actually want to do then? We pretty much already have the technology figured out, it's just proving it works and fixing minor kinks at this point. Do you want to just start putting arbitrary "expiration" dates on jobs at this point? No, that's stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
I want to be able to use an app to order a self-driving U-Haul truck to show up at my apartment, and then load crap on it and have it waiting for me at my new apartment Thats my opinion re: self-driving trucks
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:No, that's stupid. Well you don't want them to be able to filter the automation in over 10-20 years like it normally would. You don't want a drop dead date, but you seem to understand on some level that it's idiotic to try and keep out of date jobs around after they can be automated because you still don't wanna cut existing automation to bring back lost jobs and increase employment. So, either your problem isn't actually with automation but rather with a perceived view of how society should look or it's a misplaced belief that workers should never have to retrain to a new industry. How about a government law that tells the trucking companies that they are allowed to automate their trucking, but they can't fire any of their drivers and they can't move them to different jobs (because that's just a worker displacing another worker). If they want to have automated trucks that's fine, but the workers have to be given a pointless simulation truck to drive for 8 hours a day, at their current salary plus inflation, until they retire. Any new company has to also find and hire people willing to sit in the simulators for every truck on the road. There! We have increased safety and productivity by automation and all the jobs are saved. Will that work for you or have you realized how stupid that sounds compared to the option of retraining the workers or hell, even just cutting them a check. Anubis fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Well you don't want them to be able to filter the automation in over 10-20 years like it normally would. You don't want a drop dead date, but you seem to understand on some level that it's idiotic to try and keep out of date jobs around after they can be automated because you still don't wanna cut existing automation to bring back lost jobs and increase employment. So, either your problem isn't actually with automation but rather with a perceived view of how society should look or it's a misplaced belief that workers should never have to retrain to a new industry. Yeah, your suggestion is stupid. My suggestion was just ban self driving trucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Yeah, your suggestion is stupid. My suggestion was just ban self driving trucks. Also stupid. Incase that hasn't been made clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Also stupid. Incase that hasn't been made clear. Forgive me for perhaps over simplifying here, but the criticisms of my idea seem to fall into three camps 1: You can't stand in the way of SCIENCE! *gif of Professor from Futurama shaking his fist* Which I'm not gonna bother responding to 2: All the jobs should be done by robots, most humans will just be unemployed and live off welfare like in the utopian comic series Judge Dredd. Which is kind of horrifying to see people unironically espouse. 3: The money saved by self driving trucks will spread to all corners of the economy, and everyone will benefit. Which seems optimistic to me, but might have something to it. I think #3 is a reasonable criticism of my scheme. As I said, I don't think self-driving trucks actually will be good for most people, I think most of the money saved will just get hoovered up by the already rich. But I dunno, I'm not an economist. if #3 is right, my idea is misguided. But I don't think anyone's actually demonstrated that it's stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Yeah, your suggestion is stupid. My suggestion was just ban self driving trucks. Do you want to exclusively protect truckers or would you want to more generally ban automation to protect all job categories?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
You haven't demonstrated that you know anything about economics in general, or about how the specific industry youre mentioning works You're not giving people a whole lot to work with
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Forgive me for perhaps over simplifying here, but the criticisms of my idea seem to fall into three camps you're forgetting about #4, your idea is nonsensical and unenforcable and wouldn't solve any problems and generally isn't worth serious consideration
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Your idea is literally worse than the straw-man that I put up. You're proposal is less efficient, higher cost, and more dangerous than my make work idea. If your entire idea can't even beat out the efficiency of a make work proposal, what merit do you actually think it actually stands on? The terrifying thing is, this isn't even the worst idea you've postulated to this forum. That award has got to go to the terrifying post that resulted in your first probation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Bates posted:Do you want to exclusively protect truckers or would you want to more generally ban automation to protect all job categories? As I said in the OP, just truckers boner confessor posted:you're forgetting about #4, your idea is nonsensical and unenforcable and wouldn't solve any problems and generally isn't worth serious consideration How is it unenforceable? And it'd certainly solve the problem of three million people losing their jobs because of driverless trucks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:2: All the jobs should be done by robots, most humans will just be unemployed and live off welfare like in the utopian comic series Judge Dredd. Which is kind of horrifying to see people unironically espouse. Nobody has said that all jobs should be done by robots. There are jobs that would really benefit being automated though, and people could filter into jobs that are more beneficial to their local community and to society as a whole. Plus if automation was used to properly reduce living costs it would mean people would have to work less (but not everyone on welfare, just people working less) so they could focus on what's more important to them. Which may be work, I'm sure there would still be people who chose to work full weeks, but it's about giving people more choice. You've yet to say anything beyond 'people will lose jobs!' without addressing the fact people have lost jobs from automation before and why truckers are any more deserving a cause than they were, or that these jobs only exist to incentivise people to do the work which we don't need to do any more. Your only solution to said problem is ban them, which really isn't a workable solution, and for most people not even a desirable solution. It feels like you don't really want to debate it, you've decided this is how it should be and gently caress us for not seeing the light. Edit: Saw this after my post Guy Goodbody posted:As I said in the OP, just truckers Are you a trucker? Or someone in your family? I think people are genuinely confused here why you've decided the plight of the trucker is so important, compared to all the other changes caused by automation. Lord Banana fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:As I said in the OP, just truckers While we're banning self-driving trucks, is there any reason we shouldn't also ban trucks with more than one trailer in order to create more truck driving jobs? edit: What about trains, should we enact laws to protect truck drivers against competition from trains that are already less labor intensive? What about self-driving trains, or self-driving container ships? James Garfield fucked around with this message at 06:24 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:Nobody has said that all jobs should be done by robots. There are jobs that would really benefit being automated though, and people could filter into jobs that are more beneficial to their local community and to society as a whole. Plus if automation was used to properly reduce living costs it would mean people would have to work less (but not everyone on welfare, just people working less) so they could focus on what's more important to them. Which may be work, I'm sure there would still be people who chose to work full weeks, but it's about giving people more choice. How are we going to find three million open jobs that pay as good or better than truck driver, and then retrain all the truck drivers to do them? Getting all the drivers into new jobs would be a massive undertaking, which I don't really see happening. I think they're gonna get fired, and the lucky ones will end up working at Wendys. I know that people have lost jobs to automation before, but I'm not sure why people keep bringing that up. That was in the past. We can't do anything about that. Truckers aren't more deserving than people in the past, but they are helpable now. I don't understand how banning driverless trucks isn't workable. It seems like it would be pretty easy to do. And I'm definitely getting the feeling that other people aren't interested in debating it. "can't be done, science marches on, man is ground inexorably beneath the wheels of progress" Lord Banana posted:Are you a trucker? Or someone in your family? I think people are genuinely confused here why you've decided the plight of the trucker is so important, compared to all the other changes caused by automation. it just seems like an easy problem to fix.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:While we're banning self-driving trucks, is there any reason we shouldn't also ban trucks with more than one trailer in order to create more truck driving jobs? I'm pretty sure there actually are already limits on what a truck can carry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Wow OP did a robot truck hit your dog after it ran onto the highway cuz you grew up in the country where the highway was the only thing keeping your town afloat and your mom had to work two jobs at convenience stores serving people travelling between cities until she caught a passing robo-trucker's robo-sperm and had to get a AB cuz she couldn't afford another kid and when she was really stressed one day she told you she wished she'd aborted you too and why you were left to wonder why god oh why god didn't she understand that you just wanted to be loved, just wanted to be loved?! I HATE YOU GOD ...I, uh, forgot where I was going with this hypothetical I made up on the spot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:As I said in the OP, just truckers Are you engaged in a social engineering project intended to create a future society whereby the only line of work available is trucking, truckers haul items across the former USA, their trucks armored with parts from old abrams tanks lost in the uprising, their cabins bristling with spikes, their steel visored ballcaps perched on brows furrowed with concentration as they compete against the cannibal gangs to get their cargo from town to town in one piece? Serious question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
As fun as it is to dogpile on Guy Goodbody... Phasing out 3.5 million jobs is a bad thing. Creating a glut of available/desperate labor for your 'good jobs' is a bad idea if you actually want them to stay 'good jobs' There's nothing wrong with using regulations to save jobs. It's illegal to pump your own gas in Oregon and New Jersey. Hurr durr, so stupid but it saved thousands of jobs with minimal added cost. How is that a negative thing? We need to start doing something because it's getting to the point where, in a couple of decades, the majority of unskilled jobs are going to be gone and everything besides the top echelon of 'skilled' jobs are going to be up for grabs in a global market (aka americans/europeans lose) The technology is here and it's relatively cheap. That's how Amazon (secretly) developed a grocery store where you just tap your phone when you walk in, pick up whatever you want and leave. https://www.wired.com/2016/12/amazon-go-grocery-store/ How many jobs will be eliminated when that rolls out to 2000 locations compared to the average supermarket today? What will that require to keep the shelves stocked. A single skeleton crew working part time per store? There's a restaurant called Eatsa where there's 5 guys working in the back to put together orders but you'll literally never see them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d7dhJQBaf0 - Now let's jump forward and try to imagine how much more advanced this technology will be in 60 years. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
No no it can work out! If we let trucking automation happen BUT ALSO we outlaw the number of phone lines that would be too numerous for 3 million people to handle with switchboards, we can ensure a smooth transition!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
I'm talking about truckers because it seems like a pretty simple fix. As I said in the OP, just pass a law saying something like, "all commercial vehicles on public roads must have a qualified operator on board". Boom, three million jobs saved, without much downside. Saving other jobs is more complicated, I bet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:43
|
|