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 <lenn...@thornros.com> 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 <alain.sep...@gmail.com> > 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 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 >>> >> >> >
