Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
OK Axil maybe my writing was a little abbreviated. I said programmers, I really meant government initiated education in general. It is of course possible you are right that if everyone has programming skills we will soon have more software than we need. The scenario you describe is not a future I can envision. To a certain degree it is good with software I think we agree on that. At some point in time software becomes less attractive and then other skills will be appreciated like arts, music etc. That is if we do not have a government involved in everything as they probably would make a law against odd behavior and there will be no art or inventions without odd people. Mr. Rossi for example. In my POV a positive odd. To your other email saying ;government has done good' if I read it correct. No doubt from time to time even a blind hen can pick a corn. Besides that government like all organizations are unable to achieve anything. People can achieve and the organizations provide the culture (climate). The further away the organization is from the individual the worse the outcome. Small organizations is the solution. I think your future should be forbidden BTW. It is very pessimistic. I believe that we will find solutions once we found out that we are to far away from what is benefiting us. Just that the change will be revolutionary instead of an evolution, which can happen if we open our eyes before it is obvious to everyone. I think your painting of that future is good as it makes people stop and perhaps see what is in the pipeline. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > *"A government school to make everyone a programmer will fail. It has been > tried thousands and thousands times only this year and it never succeeded. > "* > > If programming is the only jobs to be had, then everybody must become > programmers. > > Law and medicine will become automated by expert programs. Transportation > will be automated. There is not very much that this expert software can’t > do. Most professions will be automated if there is enough programmers to > write the software. > > If a person cannot program but has a mean and pathological disposition, > then they should become program managers, Their job is to force the > programmer in some far off land to work 18 hours a day 7 days a week to > meet the schedule imposed on the project by the bean counters to maximize > profits and stay ahead of the competition. > > When the programmers go home to rest, they need to devote their spare time > developing on there oun software development kits to keep up with new > trends in software technology to protect themselves from technical > obsolescence. > > If the software worker becomes sick, and needs a month or two to recover, > he will be replaced on his old project and given another assignment where > he needs to start again at the bottom as a trainee and work himself up the > knowledge ladder. This new project involves some new emerging obscure > technology that is always springing up. Yes, the government will help him > get into the software workforse again. > > The way things are going, most jobs will require software skills. Each > person will pit himself against the competition of the other 10 billion > software workers in a world who are all interconnected by instantaneous > communication, cloud based shared information and work product sharing. > > Such is the workplace of our future. > > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Lennart Thornros > wrote: > >> I see nothing wrong with that the company find a way to save money. >> Sorry, that people will lose their jobs. Many blacksmiths never got the >> chance to supply the market with horseshoes but we do not see that as some >> kind of cathstrophy. >> No, there is nothing wrong so far. >> I have said so before we cannot just complain and artificially try to >> keep job either they are eliminated because that the job can be done >> cheaper elsewhere or because technology have found a new better and cheaper >> solution. Translated to LENR any other opinion ought to mean that we should >> not even try to solve the LENR theory as that will eliminate a lot of jobs >> for big utilities and oil business. No difference. >> I see two problems and they are both more political than technical or to >> do with humanism. >> The first problem is that there is no incentives to have small effective >> organizations, which can work together as need be. Instead we give >> incentives to large organizations and government run ventures. That is at a >> stage, when we know that the cost for such structure is a factor 2 to 10 >> higher. Yes it requires to allow changes. It requires to NOT promote an >> o
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Frank Znidarsic wrote: > Was that not Al Gore? > > The Internet, which is the most important computer application yet > invented, was designed and implemented by U.S. government programmers, and > paid for entirely by the government, until very late in its development. > > It was a piece of the puzzle. There is definitely a role for government in providing basic infrastructure, such as roads, basic network infrastructure, etc. The question is how to find the right balance, what does government do, what does private industry do, and how much should private industry be guided by government. The answers are never as easy as everyone pretends. Al Gore was one of the few people in the history of the US who could strike that balance very intelligently (the internet, ReGov, etc) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinventing_Government
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
This isn't anything to do with the luddite movement. Please! This has to do with the fact that we need to revamp our economic system to facilitate this change. Minimum income, that sort of thing. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > I see nothing wrong with that the company find a way to save money. Sorry, > that people will lose their jobs. Many blacksmiths never got the chance to > supply the market with horseshoes but we do not see that as some kind of > cathstrophy. > No, there is nothing wrong so far. > I have said so before we cannot just complain and artificially try to keep > job either they are eliminated because that the job can be done cheaper > elsewhere or because technology have found a new better and cheaper > solution. Translated to LENR any other opinion ought to mean that we should > not even try to solve the LENR theory as that will eliminate a lot of jobs > for big utilities and oil business. No difference. > I see two problems and they are both more political than technical or to > do with humanism. > The first problem is that there is no incentives to have small effective > organizations, which can work together as need be. Instead we give > incentives to large organizations and government run ventures. That is at a > stage, when we know that the cost for such structure is a factor 2 to 10 > higher. Yes it requires to allow changes. It requires to NOT promote an > organization because of its size. (I heard size does not matter:) Small, > flexible, able to adopt organizations will give plenty of job > opportunities. Yes, it requires engagement and accountability. However, is > that not what a real life means? > The other issue is as we talked about before. There is no shortage in this > country at least of the basics for a human life. We just have an > organization, which distribute the surplus that cost more than what it > distribute. A simple distribution of basic needs would solve the issue with > losing the job seen from basic economics and day to day life. The big loss > after that; the inability have a real life must be solved by each > individual as he/she sees fit. There is no solution that fits all. A > government school to make everyone a programmer will fail. It has been > tried thousands and thousands times only this year and it never succeeded. > Doing the same thing over and over again and expect different result . . . > . I do not know why we allow that. We elect representatives because of > reasons I think are ideological and short term egoistical more than > mirroring what we know, is effective usage of the resources. I have yet to > see a politician, regardless which party he represent, that really fought > for practical and effective solutions. Maybe it is as Churchill said; > 'Democracy is a lousy form etc.' Perhaps there is a need for another > format?? There certainly is no lack of possibilities. Technology would > allow for direct democracy limited to local area. Many questions can be > solved locally and differently to other areas. I do see the problems with > direct democracy, I am just saying that it is possible to change the format > and I think that time is ripe. Democracy has not been around for very long > and technology is far more sophisticated today than in the forties when > Churchill though it was the best anyhow. The systems tested at that time > where dictatorship and anarchy with variations. > I think Alain and I see this somewhat alike. yes, the truck drivers should > buy a truck or several and they should buy the robots and then they could > sell and operate this type of vehicles world wide, maybe earning $400,000.. > > > Best Regards , > Lennart Thornros > > www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com > lenn...@thornros.com > +1 916 436 1899 > 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 > > “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a > commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Alain Sepeda > wrote: > >> I've travelled in Nepal in the 90s. >> >> they explaine me that people tried to use donkey to transport flour and >> cement , instead of by human back. >> >> It was stopped because people were furious and block all the mountain. >> the standar human donkey hold 80kg on his back, if the client is local, >> and 40kg for foreigned for twice the price. >> >> they explained me also that there was beside the rourism, 2 industry in >> nepla. >> one is the waterfal energy, but Indian are in monopsome (buying monopoly) >> and buy for low price... Chines would pay more bur are too far through >> Tibet. >> >> The second resource was carpet, done mostly by kids. >> when western NGO and US MP asked to stop kid working, they get laid of >> and it was a local tragedy. >> >> it is complex, but i always ask what is the worst, to be a donkey, or to >> be the one who don't own a donkey. >> >> my vision is that trucker have to disapear as it is a dangerous and >
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
It's also somewhat correct. THe only point he is missing out is that AI will obviate the need for most software engineers. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > > The way things are going, most jobs will require software skills. Each >> person will pit himself against the competition of the other 10 billion >> software workers in a world who are all interconnected by instantaneous >> communication, cloud based shared information and work product sharing. >> > > Your prognosis of the future is both depressing and quite funny. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
Was that not Al Gore? The Internet, which is the most important computer application yet invented, was designed and implemented by U.S. government programmers, and paid for entirely by the government, until very late in its development.
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
Sine I watch LENR I follow also entrepreneurship subject. first of all i disagree with the vision that all job will disapear, as I rather see that it will change and we only see what will disapear and not what will appear. second I see that the problem is not technology but the lack of risk taking in embracing technology (what we see with recent change is very shy). Conservatism is the cause of inequality, not the solution. in a stable structure world, rich people are more effective at increasing their share tha poor. in changing structure, defending your share is best way to miss the boom. now once said, let us imagin that most work disapear ,most production work will be taken by bots. most "care" too... only emotional job may survive, and even. what will be the place of human ? with Uber, airbnb, imagining that there is no more driver or room cleaner, I see the work of human, beside research, to be in "taling business risk"... the job of human will be to try to buy a bot, and serve the community... if it works they will gaine their life, if not they will have to redo it on another idea. eve, if computer can drive risk taking, some people have to risk new risk taking strategies, and fill the niche that computer ignore... note that if bots don't consume work to be produce, they will cost nothing, so people even the today's poor will be able to buy one... I think it won't be that way immediately, but when you remove the work, there is the risk taking which justify to be paid. anyway money have only meaning to pay work and risk... if computer and bots reduce both, money will deflate, while wealth will grow. 2015-06-13 5:11 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker : > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < > orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > > Actually, I have mixed feelings on the matter. I hate to say anyone lose >> their jobs, no matter how hefty their wages might seem to the average >> worker making far less annually. Losing any job sucks even if the job being >> performed contributes to the process of increased global warming. > > > A point that was made elsewhere is that, inevitably, some jobs will become > redundant as technology advances. I agree. We need only a fraction of the > whalers, candlestick makers and carriage drivers that we used to. I also > don't feel that a specific business should be on the hook for the welfare > of employees whose skills have become redundant. Only a large business > could afford to assume such a burden, and I hope that large businesses all > go away. > > I also don't think that workers whose skills have become obsolete should > be left to panhandle and enter into old age without access to medical or > dental care. In my ideal world, government would provide a cushion for > these kinds of needs and for re-training through a generous basic income. > If the income was sufficient to live on, private business would be freed > entirely to hire or fire at will, with no moral obligation to consider the > consequences of those being let go. I like that -- a flexible labor > market, on one hand, and people not starving on the streets, on the other. > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: Actually, I have mixed feelings on the matter. I hate to say anyone lose > their jobs, no matter how hefty their wages might seem to the average > worker making far less annually. Losing any job sucks even if the job being > performed contributes to the process of increased global warming. A point that was made elsewhere is that, inevitably, some jobs will become redundant as technology advances. I agree. We need only a fraction of the whalers, candlestick makers and carriage drivers that we used to. I also don't feel that a specific business should be on the hook for the welfare of employees whose skills have become redundant. Only a large business could afford to assume such a burden, and I hope that large businesses all go away. I also don't think that workers whose skills have become obsolete should be left to panhandle and enter into old age without access to medical or dental care. In my ideal world, government would provide a cushion for these kinds of needs and for re-training through a generous basic income. If the income was sufficient to live on, private business would be freed entirely to hire or fire at will, with no moral obligation to consider the consequences of those being let go. I like that -- a flexible labor market, on one hand, and people not starving on the streets, on the other. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 6:17 PM, Axil Axil wrote: The way things are going, most jobs will require software skills. Each > person will pit himself against the competition of the other 10 billion > software workers in a world who are all interconnected by instantaneous > communication, cloud based shared information and work product sharing. > Your prognosis of the future is both depressing and quite funny. Eric
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
Axil Axil wrote: *"A government school to make everyone a programmer will fail. It has been > tried thousands and thousands times only this year and it never succeeded. > "* > I do not know who said that, but it is completely ridiculous. Totally false. It is just the opposite! The U.S. Government invented computers and trained the first thousand or so programmers and other experts. I mean people such as Adm. Grace Hopper, the staff at ENIAC and the IAS, and my mother. The government paid for the first 10 or 20 computers. Nearly all of the early luminaries in both hardware and software were trained by the government or at government expense in projects such as MIT's Whirlwind. Nearly all early computers were purchased by national laboratories and the U.S. Census Bureau, where my mother was one of the first people in the world to use them. In the early 1960s, the three largest computer users by far were the U.S. military, U.S. national labs, and the Census Bureau. They had more expertise and they purchased more machines than any industrial company of that era. The specifications for virtually all supercomputers such as the UNIVAC LARC were spelled out by government experts, and the machines were purchased exclusively by the government. The LARC architecture introduced many important breakthroughs. Most breakthroughs in computer hardware such as core memory, semiconductors and hard disks were paid for by Uncle Sam, or done with close participation by government researchers, or under government contracts. The Internet, which is the most important computer application yet invented, was designed and implemented by U.S. government programmers, and paid for entirely by the government, until very late in its development. Apart from IBM, no organization contributed more to the development of computers than the U.S. Government. The British, French and Japanese governments also made major contributions. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
*"A government school to make everyone a programmer will fail. It has been tried thousands and thousands times only this year and it never succeeded. "* If programming is the only jobs to be had, then everybody must become programmers. Law and medicine will become automated by expert programs. Transportation will be automated. There is not very much that this expert software can’t do. Most professions will be automated if there is enough programmers to write the software. If a person cannot program but has a mean and pathological disposition, then they should become program managers, Their job is to force the programmer in some far off land to work 18 hours a day 7 days a week to meet the schedule imposed on the project by the bean counters to maximize profits and stay ahead of the competition. When the programmers go home to rest, they need to devote their spare time developing on there oun software development kits to keep up with new trends in software technology to protect themselves from technical obsolescence. If the software worker becomes sick, and needs a month or two to recover, he will be replaced on his old project and given another assignment where he needs to start again at the bottom as a trainee and work himself up the knowledge ladder. This new project involves some new emerging obscure technology that is always springing up. Yes, the government will help him get into the software workforse again. The way things are going, most jobs will require software skills. Each person will pit himself against the competition of the other 10 billion software workers in a world who are all interconnected by instantaneous communication, cloud based shared information and work product sharing. Such is the workplace of our future. On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Lennart Thornros wrote: > I see nothing wrong with that the company find a way to save money. Sorry, > that people will lose their jobs. Many blacksmiths never got the chance to > supply the market with horseshoes but we do not see that as some kind of > cathstrophy. > No, there is nothing wrong so far. > I have said so before we cannot just complain and artificially try to keep > job either they are eliminated because that the job can be done cheaper > elsewhere or because technology have found a new better and cheaper > solution. Translated to LENR any other opinion ought to mean that we should > not even try to solve the LENR theory as that will eliminate a lot of jobs > for big utilities and oil business. No difference. > I see two problems and they are both more political than technical or to > do with humanism. > The first problem is that there is no incentives to have small effective > organizations, which can work together as need be. Instead we give > incentives to large organizations and government run ventures. That is at a > stage, when we know that the cost for such structure is a factor 2 to 10 > higher. Yes it requires to allow changes. It requires to NOT promote an > organization because of its size. (I heard size does not matter:) Small, > flexible, able to adopt organizations will give plenty of job > opportunities. Yes, it requires engagement and accountability. However, is > that not what a real life means? > The other issue is as we talked about before. There is no shortage in this > country at least of the basics for a human life. We just have an > organization, which distribute the surplus that cost more than what it > distribute. A simple distribution of basic needs would solve the issue with > losing the job seen from basic economics and day to day life. The big loss > after that; the inability have a real life must be solved by each > individual as he/she sees fit. There is no solution that fits all. A > government school to make everyone a programmer will fail. It has been > tried thousands and thousands times only this year and it never succeeded. > Doing the same thing over and over again and expect different result . . . > . I do not know why we allow that. We elect representatives because of > reasons I think are ideological and short term egoistical more than > mirroring what we know, is effective usage of the resources. I have yet to > see a politician, regardless which party he represent, that really fought > for practical and effective solutions. Maybe it is as Churchill said; > 'Democracy is a lousy form etc.' Perhaps there is a need for another > format?? There certainly is no lack of possibilities. Technology would > allow for direct democracy limited to local area. Many questions can be > solved locally and differently to other areas. I do see the problems with > direct democracy, I am just saying that it is possible to change the format > and I think that time is ripe. Democracy has not been around for very long > and technology is far more sophisticated today than in the forties when > Churchill though it was the best anyhow. The systems tested at that time > where dictatorship and anarchy wit
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
I see nothing wrong with that the company find a way to save money. Sorry, that people will lose their jobs. Many blacksmiths never got the chance to supply the market with horseshoes but we do not see that as some kind of cathstrophy. No, there is nothing wrong so far. I have said so before we cannot just complain and artificially try to keep job either they are eliminated because that the job can be done cheaper elsewhere or because technology have found a new better and cheaper solution. Translated to LENR any other opinion ought to mean that we should not even try to solve the LENR theory as that will eliminate a lot of jobs for big utilities and oil business. No difference. I see two problems and they are both more political than technical or to do with humanism. The first problem is that there is no incentives to have small effective organizations, which can work together as need be. Instead we give incentives to large organizations and government run ventures. That is at a stage, when we know that the cost for such structure is a factor 2 to 10 higher. Yes it requires to allow changes. It requires to NOT promote an organization because of its size. (I heard size does not matter:) Small, flexible, able to adopt organizations will give plenty of job opportunities. Yes, it requires engagement and accountability. However, is that not what a real life means? The other issue is as we talked about before. There is no shortage in this country at least of the basics for a human life. We just have an organization, which distribute the surplus that cost more than what it distribute. A simple distribution of basic needs would solve the issue with losing the job seen from basic economics and day to day life. The big loss after that; the inability have a real life must be solved by each individual as he/she sees fit. There is no solution that fits all. A government school to make everyone a programmer will fail. It has been tried thousands and thousands times only this year and it never succeeded. Doing the same thing over and over again and expect different result . . . . I do not know why we allow that. We elect representatives because of reasons I think are ideological and short term egoistical more than mirroring what we know, is effective usage of the resources. I have yet to see a politician, regardless which party he represent, that really fought for practical and effective solutions. Maybe it is as Churchill said; 'Democracy is a lousy form etc.' Perhaps there is a need for another format?? There certainly is no lack of possibilities. Technology would allow for direct democracy limited to local area. Many questions can be solved locally and differently to other areas. I do see the problems with direct democracy, I am just saying that it is possible to change the format and I think that time is ripe. Democracy has not been around for very long and technology is far more sophisticated today than in the forties when Churchill though it was the best anyhow. The systems tested at that time where dictatorship and anarchy with variations. I think Alain and I see this somewhat alike. yes, the truck drivers should buy a truck or several and they should buy the robots and then they could sell and operate this type of vehicles world wide, maybe earning $400,000.. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Alain Sepeda wrote: > I've travelled in Nepal in the 90s. > > they explaine me that people tried to use donkey to transport flour and > cement , instead of by human back. > > It was stopped because people were furious and block all the mountain. > the standar human donkey hold 80kg on his back, if the client is local, > and 40kg for foreigned for twice the price. > > they explained me also that there was beside the rourism, 2 industry in > nepla. > one is the waterfal energy, but Indian are in monopsome (buying monopoly) > and buy for low price... Chines would pay more bur are too far through > Tibet. > > The second resource was carpet, done mostly by kids. > when western NGO and US MP asked to stop kid working, they get laid of and > it was a local tragedy. > > it is complex, but i always ask what is the worst, to be a donkey, or to > be the one who don't own a donkey. > > my vision is that trucker have to disapear as it is a dangerous and > exhausting job. > They should own their truck and be capitalist. > > The future of capitalism is to deconcentrate it, to make microcapitalism. > neither crony capitalism like today, or state capitalism like soviet, just > mainsteet Uber capitalism. > > own your truck, and make a business (there us a truck Uber in Kenya and > to work very well) > own a flat and rent to tourists > own a bot lawn mower and
Re: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
I've travelled in Nepal in the 90s. they explaine me that people tried to use donkey to transport flour and cement , instead of by human back. It was stopped because people were furious and block all the mountain. the standar human donkey hold 80kg on his back, if the client is local, and 40kg for foreigned for twice the price. they explained me also that there was beside the rourism, 2 industry in nepla. one is the waterfal energy, but Indian are in monopsome (buying monopoly) and buy for low price... Chines would pay more bur are too far through Tibet. The second resource was carpet, done mostly by kids. when western NGO and US MP asked to stop kid working, they get laid of and it was a local tragedy. it is complex, but i always ask what is the worst, to be a donkey, or to be the one who don't own a donkey. my vision is that trucker have to disapear as it is a dangerous and exhausting job. They should own their truck and be capitalist. The future of capitalism is to deconcentrate it, to make microcapitalism. neither crony capitalism like today, or state capitalism like soviet, just mainsteet Uber capitalism. own your truck, and make a business (there us a truck Uber in Kenya and to work very well) own a flat and rent to tourists own a bot lawn mower and help your neighbours... microbusiness. don't be the donkey, buy the donkey. not so easy, especially when capitalism is crony as usual, and when state enforce regulation to please big pockets, in exchange to safe donkey jobs for the poorer. 2015-06-12 17:42 GMT+02:00 Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < orionwo...@charter.net>: > From Eric: > > > > > > http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/06/driverless-truck-to-hit-albertas.html > > > > > By decommissioning drivers of the huge trucks that are used at mines and > switching to > > > driverless trucks in the near future, the CFO of Suncor, a Canadian > mining outfit, > > > implies that the company could save 800 drivers * 200,000 dollars per > year. > > > > This isn't OT, Off-Topic. It's very on-topic. It's a popular Social Issues > Vort topic! > > > > According to the math, this company stands to "save" up to 160 million a > year by getting rid of their drivers. > > > > The article also states: > > > > For Suncor’s roughly 1,000 heavy-haul truck operators, however, the > prospect of driverless trucks has raised more immediate fears of > significant job losses. > > > > One wonders where the calculated savings and increased profits are likely > to end up being reflected in. The open market for fossil fuel products is > not likely to go down one smidgen. So, who is going to end up making a > profit here? I'm sure the 800 drivers about to be laid off have an opinion > on the matter. > > > > Actually, I have mixed feelings on the matter. I hate to say anyone lose > their jobs, no matter how hefty their wages might seem to the average > worker making far less annually. Losing any job sucks even if the job being > performed contributes to the process of increased global warming. > > > > When it comes to job losses and/or reduced pay, thinking about the > economics from a macroeconomic POV casts a very different perspective on > the matter than from a personal micro-economics POV. From an macroeconomic > perspective it boils down to how a nation's collective wealth is being > redistributed, equitably or inequitably. As a society we need to become > better educated on the consequences of how wealth (and power associated > with accumulated wealth) is actively becoming more concentrated within the > bank accounts of the 1%. Automation is actively contributing to this > effect. We can't stop automation, nor should we want to. For better or > worse, it's a done deal. However, if we are going to survive as a thriving > society we will have to find more equitable ways of distributing increasing > amounts of generated automated wealth. Unfortunately, at present the > evidence would seem to suggest that isn't happening. The point being, if a > 1%'er has now moved his goal-post to becoming a 0.1%'er it doesn't make > much sense to consider altruistic notions finding ways to distribute the > other .9% of one's accumulated wealth in a more fair and equitable manner. > > > > Jed has already brought this matter up, but it bears repeating, Martin > Ford's recent book " Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a > Jobless Future" sounds like a good read. > > > > > http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Robots-Technology-Threat-Jobless/dp/0465059996/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434121612&sr=1-1&keywords=martin+ford > > > > http://tinyurl.com/op2on8k > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > svjart.orionworks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks >
RE: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
Fair warning. The following is personal pertaining to the loss of jobs and reduced pay: Feel free to ignore the following personal rant if so inclined: I would like comment on another profession, one that is more personal to me, a profession some in our society would like to gut as the solution to our society's ills. I was a Wisconsin state worker for 36 years. I retired last December. Over the final five years of my employment I noticed there seemed to have been a lot of political rhetoric being stirred up focusing on a carefully contrived belief that state and federal workers are nothing more than leeches on the system. This is a silly notion considering all the goods and services being performed that few privately owned companies could afford stay in business, DBA. Are state & federally run "business" perfect? No, of course they aren't. Waste occurs. However, such imperfections aren't any more egregious than running any number of private corporations. Nevertheless, the notion of a state or federal worker's worthlessness seems to have become a form of religious fact to many people with strong conservative leanings. Having worked for the state of Wisconsin for 36 years, having watched and personally experienced Scott Walker become installed back in 2009, having watched our unions get gutted (an action Mr. Walker NEVER EVER advertised he would do doing his campaign... why would he keep such potentially devastating action secret? Who did he rightfully fear might come out and steal his thunder?), watching my net take home pay get reduced by over $450 dollars per month in order to pay for increased retirement and health insurance premiums, I can attest to how powerless any employee might feel no matter who their employer might be. Nevertheless, I was lucky. I know that. I already had over 36 years in the system. I managed to get out relatively unscathed with a reasonable retirement annuity intact. Now I can afford to focus 100% on personal projects that hopefully will make useful contributions to society, all due to the fact that I was lucky enough to have accumulated a decent retirement annuity that now allows me to work independently of what any employer might demand I do for him in order to get paid. I cannot say the same for new state employees now coming into the system. New state employees will have a much harder time saving for retirement, let alone save for anything. These days I would not recommend going into state service as a sound career move. While it is riskier, IMO, you are far more likely to generate significantly higher gross salaries and wages out in the private sector. However, and this is the real kicker, after you add in health insurance premiums and 401K plans that increasing numbers of employers are now refusing to contribute to, it's anyone's guess as to whether one's actual net take home pay would be any better. But hey! It will at least look like you're making a ton of money... before you add in the deductions. And isn't that what the illusion is all about? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
>From Eric: > http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/06/driverless-truck-to-hit-albertas.html > By decommissioning drivers of the huge trucks that are used at mines and > switching to > driverless trucks in the near future, the CFO of Suncor, a Canadian mining > outfit, > implies that the company could save 800 drivers * 200,000 dollars per year. This isn't OT, Off-Topic. It's very on-topic. It's a popular Social Issues Vort topic! According to the math, this company stands to "save" up to 160 million a year by getting rid of their drivers. The article also states: For Suncor’s roughly 1,000 heavy-haul truck operators, however, the prospect of driverless trucks has raised more immediate fears of significant job losses. One wonders where the calculated savings and increased profits are likely to end up being reflected in. The open market for fossil fuel products is not likely to go down one smidgen. So, who is going to end up making a profit here? I'm sure the 800 drivers about to be laid off have an opinion on the matter. Actually, I have mixed feelings on the matter. I hate to say anyone lose their jobs, no matter how hefty their wages might seem to the average worker making far less annually. Losing any job sucks even if the job being performed contributes to the process of increased global warming. When it comes to job losses and/or reduced pay, thinking about the economics from a macroeconomic POV casts a very different perspective on the matter than from a personal micro-economics POV. From an macroeconomic perspective it boils down to how a nation's collective wealth is being redistributed, equitably or inequitably. As a society we need to become better educated on the consequences of how wealth (and power associated with accumulated wealth) is actively becoming more concentrated within the bank accounts of the 1%. Automation is actively contributing to this effect. We can't stop automation, nor should we want to. For better or worse, it's a done deal. However, if we are going to survive as a thriving society we will have to find more equitable ways of distributing increasing amounts of generated automated wealth. Unfortunately, at present the evidence would seem to suggest that isn't happening. The point being, if a 1%'er has now moved his goal-post to becoming a 0.1%'er it doesn't make much sense to consider altruistic notions finding ways to distribute the other .9% of one's accumulated wealth in a more fair and equitable manner. Jed has already brought this matter up, but it bears repeating, Martin Ford's recent book " Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future" sounds like a good read. http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Robots-Technology-Threat-Jobless/dp/0465059996/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434121612&sr=1-1&keywords=martin+ford http://tinyurl.com/op2on8k Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
[Vo]:OT: move to driverless mining trucks
See: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/06/driverless-truck-to-hit-albertas.html By decommissioning drivers of the huge trucks that are used at mines and switching to driverless trucks in the near future, the CFO of Suncor, a Canadian mining outfit, implies that the company could save 800 drivers * 200,000 dollars per year. Eric
