>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
