MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on February 13, 2018, 08:27:45 PM
-
The robots are coming (which includes self-driving cars) and they are going to tear society apart.
Meet the modern-day Luddite Andrew Yang who is running for the Democrat nomination in 2020 to stop progress.
His 2020 Campaign Message: The Robots Are Coming
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/10/technology/his-2020-campaign-message-the-robots-are-coming.html?smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&smtyp=cur
All you need is self-driving cars to destabilize society," Mr. Yang, 43, said over lunch at a Thai restaurant in Manhattan last month, in his first interview about his campaign. In just a few years, he said, "we’re going to have a million truck drivers out of work who are 94 percent male, with an average level of education of high school or one year of college."
"That one innovation," he continued, "will be enough to create riots in the street. And we’re about to do the same thing to retail workers, call center workers, fast-food workers, insurance companies, accounting firms."
The insight about Trump carrying states with highest automation is very interesting and I would love to see some real analysis on that.
Alarmist? Sure. But Mr. Yang’s doomsday prophecy echoes the concerns of a growing number of labor economists and tech experts who are worried about the coming economic consequences of automation.
-
To be clear, my intention was NOT (repeat NOT) to start a political thread. Instead, this interested me because here is a guy that has a platform that the robots must be stopped before they destroy society.
I'll bet this gets some traction. No, he is not getting the nomination, or even winning a primary, but I would not be surprised if his message gets a thorough airing in the coming years. Lots of people are afraid of technology and will find this message appealing.
Count me as thinking this message being overly alarmist. History shows technology is it is a net creator of jobs, not a destroyer.
-
Politicians fear organized, debt-enslaved voters more than they fear automation-induced unemployment. Porter Stansberry is equally alarmist about how political pressures are creating an environment where complete debt forgiveness (student loans, credit card debt etc) is a distinct possibility. He terms what is on the horizon as a biblical-style "Jubilee", which will have the asset class running for their lives. Which begs, "How big are the trunks on these Googlecabs?"
-
Robots will "Destroy" society until we put a universal income.
-
To be clear, my intention was NOT (repeat NOT) to start a political thread.
Question for mods, you ban people here for political talk. Why isn't this thread locked and Smuggles on a week's vacation from this site?
-
The concern with massive automation (like getting rid of truckers and all the associated business) is consolidation of wealth even further in the hands of the few (especially when the govt appears to be pivoting towards cutting assistance programs - which will be badly needed if millions are out of work due to automation).
-
I have two buddies who are truck drivers, a 20-some year veteran in his late 50s and another in his mid 40s. I have not spoken with the latter but the former feels like he has enough seniority and is close enough to retirement that technology won’t affect him.
We both agree that our other aforementioned buddy (and most of their peers) is probably better off going to CLC to get a diploma or certification as an HVAC technician; fortunately, he doesn’t own his rig, so he can walk away any time without the burden of a lease hanging over him. Problem is, not of lot of his kin are in the same position, and there are still way more open positions for truck drivers than there are for either plumbers or HVAC specialists right now.
Riots in the street? Not surprising from a political candidate trying to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt into the masses for the sole purpose of motivating manipulating them to vote. Maybe if elections were compulsory, our political candidates would be more focused on vision and solutions than they are driving people to the polls. Oh well, I suppose suppressing the vote of 40% of the population is more important than the betterment of society.
-
Completely by chance, I happened upon an Oct 2017 report from the American Truckers Association this morning on this very topic (PDF available here: http://trck.ng/drivershortage)
tl;dr -- By the end of 2017, driver shortage in the trucking industry was expected to exceed 50k, and by 2026, the shortage could be as high as 174,000. Incidentally, the 2026 estimate is based on current trends and does not account for any changes in regulations or technological advances (e.g. autonomous trucks). In fact, it even cites autonomous trucks as a potential course of action to reverse the shortage.
Other interesting stats:
Average driver age in the OTR sector is 49; average age is even higher for LTL's and private carriers.
70.6% of freight tonnage in the US is carried by truck (i.e. shifting burden to rail, air, water, etc. would not be feasible).
43% of the cost of trucking is driver compensation.
6% of truck drivers are female; 38.7% are minorities (no mention of crossover between the two).
88% of employers feel they're getting enough applicants but not enough are qualified.
90,000 drivers/year need to be hired over next decade; 49% will replace retiring drivers, 28% will accommodate growth. Of the remaining 23%, hires to replace disqualifications will outnumber those replacing drivers pursuing other opportunities 2:1.
Moral of Story: Mr. Yang should be using something other than smoke and mirrors to promote his UBI platform. But UBI, like compulsory voting, is a legitimate solution for the betterment of society that will be sacrificed at sea as our elected leaders focus solely on advancing and preserving their own vessels.
-
That is damn interesting, Benny.
Interesting how .. I thought .. truck drivers were not well paid, working for scraps. That may be true .. but with massive shortages, you'd think they could demand a pretty good wage. (Which would hasten the advent of robot drivers, of course..)
-
The biggest question I have regarding the self-driving trucks that are surely coming is whether there will need to be a human present in the truck. While I have no doubt that the technology will allow the trucks to drive themselves before too long, I suspect there will be a requirement to have a human present. It will require less skill than driving, but I'd think someone will be there.
-
Completely by chance, I happened upon an Oct 2017 report from the American Truckers Association this morning on this very topic (PDF available here: http://trck.ng/drivershortage)
tl;dr -- By the end of 2017, driver shortage in the trucking industry was expected to exceed 50k, and by 2026, the shortage could be as high as 174,000. Incidentally, the 2026 estimate is based on current trends and does not account for any changes in regulations or technological advances (e.g. autonomous trucks). In fact, it even cites autonomous trucks as a potential course of action to reverse the shortage.
Other interesting stats:
Average driver age in the OTR sector is 49; average age is even higher for LTL's and private carriers.
70.6% of freight tonnage in the US is carried by truck (i.e. shifting burden to rail, air, water, etc. would not be feasible).
43% of the cost of trucking is driver compensation.
6% of truck drivers are female; 38.7% are minorities (no mention of crossover between the two).
88% of employers feel they're getting enough applicants but not enough are qualified.
90,000 drivers/year need to be hired over next decade; 49% will replace retiring drivers, 28% will accommodate growth. Of the remaining 23%, hires to replace disqualifications will outnumber those replacing drivers pursuing other opportunities 2:1.
Moral of Story: Mr. Yang should be using something other than smoke and mirrors to promote his UBI platform. But UBI, like compulsory voting, is a legitimate solution for the betterment of society that will be sacrificed at sea as our elected leaders focus solely on advancing and preserving their own vessels.
I would say some of the shortage is because of bad work conditions long hours and the looming threat of being replaced by Wally the robot. Just because there's a shortage doesn't mean your job isn't threatened by automation
-
The driver shortage is worse recently because construction is up since the housing bubble. Both jobs compete for much the same work force.
-
I would say some of the shortage is because of bad work conditions long hours and the looming threat of being replaced by Wally the robot. Just because there's a shortage doesn't mean your job isn't threatened by automation
The driver shortage is worse recently because construction is up since the housing bubble. Both jobs compete for much the same work force.
Both true. However, I would offer to the former that speculation of autonomous vehicles becoming a discussion of the actuality of it in the near-term - at least in the format of it replacing truck drivers - didn't really come into the mainstream until about 12-18 months ago, yet the driver shortages have been going on for some time now. Frankly, the first "oh shiit" moments for Jimbob the Truck Driver et al began with the premier of Logan , and that was just shy of a year ago.
To the latter, the report addresses this... and notably, calls out the construction industry three times. But in doing a little math in the margins of the report, the number of drivers being lost to other employment, at most, accounts for only 8% of the shortages on a forward basis. In other words, for every driver lost to the construction industry, at least 6 more are being lost to retirement.
-
Completely by chance, I happened upon an Oct 2017 report from the American Truckers Association this morning on this very topic (PDF available here: http://trck.ng/drivershortage)
tl;dr -- By the end of 2017, driver shortage in the trucking industry was expected to exceed 50k, and by 2026, the shortage could be as high as 174,000. Incidentally, the 2026 estimate is based on current trends and does not account for any changes in regulations or technological advances (e.g. autonomous trucks). In fact, it even cites autonomous trucks as a potential course of action to reverse the shortage.
One of my clients is a very, very large trucking company (think top 3). Going forward, though, they think of themselves as a logistics company that will happen to also transport goods.
The C-suite tells me that they believe that in more than 5 but less than 10 years their fleet will be autonomous and their drivers, two-thirds of their workforce, will be largely gone. Across trucking, it will equate to ~2M middle class jobs.
I'm not sure that we can say that in the future--now, really--technological advances will create more jobs than they destroy.
-
I'm not sure that we can say that in the future--now, really--technological advances will create more jobs than they destroy.
I'm sorry I am confused on what your saying. Are you saying that technological advances WILL create more jobs? Because automation is basically the science of how not to have a human do it.
-
I'm sorry I am confused on what your saying. Are you saying that technological advances WILL create more jobs? Because automation is basically the science of how not to have a human do it.
I had to re-read it too, but I don't think there's any argument that both a) automation is technology, and b) automation kills more jobs than it creates; however, I wouldn't be too quick to throw the entirety of technology into the net-negative bucket.... after all, if not for the technology of the personal computer, how many of those jobs would even exist in Cupertino these days?
Answer: As of October 5, 2011, none.
-
I'm sorry I am confused on what your saying. Are you saying that technological advances WILL create more jobs? Because automation is basically the science of how not to have a human do it.
Automation frees up human capital to do other higher order things. Transformation is a chaotic process which will hurt some but with only one exception have we seen disruptive change that was a net negative (dark ages). Jobs are to be had and darn near plentiful if you can figure out how to change with the times/automation.
Simple example, I can learn to do calculus by hand....or I can have the calculator do it for me and spend that learning time on figuring out how/why to apply it to something useful.
-
I had to re-read it too, but I don't think there's any argument that both a) automation is technology, and b) automation kills more jobs than it creates; however, I wouldn't be too quick to throw the entirety of technology into the net-negative bucket.... after all, if not for the technology of the personal computer, how many of those jobs would even exist in Cupertino these days?
Answer: As of October 5, 2011, none.
Sorry, I probably could have been a lot clearer. Historically, like your example of the PC, technological advances have been net creators of jobs. I don't know if that is the case going forward.
Perhaps that is due to the accelerating roll out of automation as you elude to, but we seem to be in a cycle of destroying a lot more middle class jobs than we are creating.
-
Automation frees up human capital to do other higher order things. Transformation is a chaotic process which will hurt some but with only one exception have we seen disruptive change that was a net negative (dark ages). Jobs are to be had and darn near plentiful if you can figure out how to change with the times/automation.
Simple example, I can learn to do calculus by hand....or I can have the calculator do it for me and spend that learning time on figuring out how/why to apply it to something useful.
You are far more optimistic than I am. The people being obsoleted now can't do calculus by hand, or even with a calculator. I think a good portion of them are incapable of doing higher order things.
-
You are far more optimistic than I am. The people being obsoleted now can't do calculus by hand, or even with a calculator. I think a good portion of them are incapable of doing higher order things.
So what do you do? Do you block technological progress for the benefit of the few at the detriment of the many?
-
So what do you do? Do you block technological progress for the benefit of the few at the detriment of the many?
UBI
-
That is damn interesting, Benny.
Interesting how .. I thought .. truck drivers were not well paid, working for scraps. That may be true .. but with massive shortages, you'd think they could demand a pretty good wage. (Which would hasten the advent of robot drivers, of course..)
Most of the studies I've seen say that long-haul trucker is about the worst job in the United States ... low pay, barely move at work (no exercise), eat crappy food, away from home a lot, boring.
43% of the cost of trucking is driver compensation.
And this is the stat which is going to lead to driverless trucks. Can cut almost half your cost by getting rid of the driver.
The biggest question I have regarding the self-driving trucks that are surely coming is whether there will need to be a human present in the truck. While I have no doubt that the technology will allow the trucks to drive themselves before too long, I suspect there will be a requirement to have a human present. It will require less skill than driving, but I'd think someone will be there.
Correct, they will need a person in the truck initially. Eventually no.
Also, the long term thinking is if long-haul driver assisted trucks can drive between say 10PM - 6AM can they allow them to go faster than the posted speed limit. Again they are heavily driver assisted so they are safer than human only. And if they stay off the roads between, say, 7AM - 7PM we all benefit without that traffic clogging highways. But, in the future, you might see caravans of self-driving or driver assisted truck screaming down the interstate at 3AM at 100+ MPH each truck taking turns breaking the wind like a tour de France peloton.
-
You are far more optimistic than I am. The people being obsoleted now can't do calculus by hand, or even with a calculator. I think a good portion of them are incapable of doing higher order things.
The majority of the people who are being "obsoleted" are people that had almost no actual skill sets (calculus metaphor was a....metaphor, not literal). They are people who were physically performing activities with little to no actual intellect or training involved and very likely getting to retirement age anyway. With technological advancement hard things get easy(limited training/intellect) and new things are found that are hard to do(requiring higher education/intellect).
Example: Think of the ipad, my grandmother can't really use it but my two year old will easily in the next year if we let him.
-
The biggest question I have regarding the self-driving trucks that are surely coming is whether there will need to be a human present in the truck. While I have no doubt that the technology will allow the trucks to drive themselves before too long, I suspect there will be a requirement to have a human present. It will require less skill than driving, but I'd think someone will be there.
My best guess. 3-5 years from now automation is accessible but still slightly rare. Like seeing electric or hybrids. Human must be in driver seat and being attentive.
6-12 years - Common sight. 50% of cars are automated. Laws are relaxed as to attentiveness.
12-18 years - automation is almost a given. Still some drivers who want to drive themselves(kind of like manuals) attentive driver laws are completely removed. Cars are being made with seats facing inwards instead of towards windshield. Those who do not yet have driver licenses will never recieve them.
20+ Human driving is illegal.
-
I had to re-read it too, but I don't think there's any argument that both a) automation is technology, and b) automation kills more jobs than it creates; however, I wouldn't be too quick to throw the entirety of technology into the net-negative bucket.... after all, if not for the technology of the personal computer, how many of those jobs would even exist in Cupertino these days?
Answer: As of October 5, 2011, none.
Not true, new technology typically creates more jobs than it kills. It easy to see jobs that go away, hard to imagine the new jobs it will create. So, it leaves one with the impression that it kills jobs.
See Northwestern's Bob Gordon at this MIT conference
http://futureofwork.mit.edu/
Examples
13,000 taxis in NYC. Uber/Lyft/Ridesharing has killed about half the taxi jobs. But it has also created over 50,000 ridesharing jobs in NYC. Uber is a net creator of jobs.
My favorite ... the invention the spreadsheet killed off the "bookkeeper" but created far more jobs as "financial analysts." The spreadsheet was not a killer of jobs or the accounting industry, it was a creator of jobs and fundamentally changed what an accountant does.
Wall Street Journal
August 2, 2017
We Survived Spreadsheets, and We’ll Survive AI
History shows technology fuels new kinds of jobs in addition to the ones it renders obsolete
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wesurvived-spreadsheets-and-well-survive-ai-1501688765
Then along came personal computers and spreadsheet programs VisiCalc in 1979, Lotus 1-2-3 in 1983 and Microsoft Excel a few years later. Suddenly, you could change one number—say, this year’s rent—and instantly recalculate costs, revenues and profits years into the future. This simplified routine bookkeeping while making many tasks possible, such as modeling alternate scenarios.
“You could play the what-if game. You know, what if I did this instead of that?” accountant Allen Sneider, the first registered buyer of VisiCalc, told NPR’s “Planet Money” in 2015 for a retrospective on spreadsheets.
(https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CQ653_CAPACC_16U_20170802091511.jpg)
The new technology pummeled demand for bookkeepers: their ranks have shrunk 44% from two million in 1985, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yet people who could run numbers on the new software became hot commodities. Since 1985, the ranks of accountants and auditors have grown 41%, to 1.8 million, while financial managers and management analysts, which the BLS didn’t even track before 1983, have nearly quadrupled to 2.1 million.
Just as spreadsheets drove costs down and demand up for calculations, machine learning—the application of AI to large data sets—will do the same for predictions, argue Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb, who teach at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. “Prediction about uncertain states of the world is an input into decision making,” they wrote in a recent paper.
----------
Tellers were not killed by the ATM, we have more tellers now than ever. E-commerce is not killing retailing jobs, we have more e-commerce jobs than we lost in brick and mortar retailing. Again, it is hard to imagine the new jobs automation creates, easy to see the jobs it displaces.
Wall Street Journal
September 5, 2017
Workers: Fear Not the Robot Apocalypse
Automation commonly creates more, and better-paying, jobs than it destroys. A case in point: U.S. retailing
https://www.wsj.com/articles/workers-fear-not-the-robot-apocalypse-1504631505?mg=prod/accounts-wsj
Those fears have repeatedly proven baseless. James Bessen, an economist at Boston University School of Law, has found in numerous episodes when technology was supposed to annihilate jobs, the opposite occurred. After the first automated tellers were installed in the 1970s, an executive at Wells, Fargo & Co. predicted ATMs would lead to fewer branches with even fewer staff. And indeed, the average branch used one-third fewer workers in 2004 than in 1988. But, Mr. Bessen found, ATMs made it much cheaper to operate a branch so banks opened more: Total branches rose 43% over that time. Today, banks employ more tellers than in 1980 and their duties have expanded to things ATMs can’t do such as “relationship banking.”
---
Retail is easily the largest U.S. industry now facing digital disruption and yet there is strong evidence e-commerce hasn’t reduced overall employment and has likely added to it. It is true that thousands of stores have closed. Between the end of 2007 and the middle of 2017, brick-and-mortar retailers lost the equivalent of 140,000full-time jobs, according to a forthcoming report by Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank. Electronic shopping jobs rose by only 126,000 in the same period.
But, Mr. Mandel notes, that excludes many jobs at fulfillment centers such as Fall River, which the federal Bureau of Labor Statisticstends to count in warehousing and storage. He notes that Kentucky had just 3,213 e-commerce workers in 2016 according to the BLS, yet Amazon employs more than 12,000 there. Warehousing has added 274,000 jobs nationwide since 2007. Mr. Mandel argues all of those are attributable tofulfillment centers and that thus total e-commerce employment has grown 401,000, nearly three times the brick-and-mortar drop. Mr. Mandel finds that fulfillment centers pay on average 31% better than brick and mortar stores in the same
-
Not true, new technology typically creates more jobs than it kills. It easy to see jobs that go away, hard to imagine the new jobs it will create. So, it leaves one with the impression that it kills jobs.
See Northwestern's Bob Gordon at this MIT conference
http://futureofwork.mit.edu/
Examples
13,000 taxis in NYC. Uber/Lyft/Ridesharing has killed about half the taxi jobs. But it has also created over 50,000 ridesharing jobs in NYC. Uber is a net creator of jobs.
My favorite ... the invention the spreadsheet killed off the "bookkeeper" but created far more jobs as "financial analysts." The spreadsheet was not a killer of jobs or the accounting industry, it was a creator of jobs and fundamentally changed what an accountant does.
Wall Street Journal
August 2, 2017
We Survived Spreadsheets, and We’ll Survive AI
History shows technology fuels new kinds of jobs in addition to the ones it renders obsolete
https://www.wsj.com/articles/wesurvived-spreadsheets-and-well-survive-ai-1501688765
Then along came personal computers and spreadsheet programs VisiCalc in 1979, Lotus 1-2-3 in 1983 and Microsoft Excel a few years later. Suddenly, you could change one number—say, this year’s rent—and instantly recalculate costs, revenues and profits years into the future. This simplified routine bookkeeping while making many tasks possible, such as modeling alternate scenarios.
“You could play the what-if game. You know, what if I did this instead of that?” accountant Allen Sneider, the first registered buyer of VisiCalc, told NPR’s “Planet Money” in 2015 for a retrospective on spreadsheets.
(https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-CQ653_CAPACC_16U_20170802091511.jpg)
The new technology pummeled demand for bookkeepers: their ranks have shrunk 44% from two million in 1985, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yet people who could run numbers on the new software became hot commodities. Since 1985, the ranks of accountants and auditors have grown 41%, to 1.8 million, while financial managers and management analysts, which the BLS didn’t even track before 1983, have nearly quadrupled to 2.1 million.
Just as spreadsheets drove costs down and demand up for calculations, machine learning—the application of AI to large data sets—will do the same for predictions, argue Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb, who teach at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. “Prediction about uncertain states of the world is an input into decision making,” they wrote in a recent paper.
----------
Tellers were not killed by the ATM, we have more tellers now than ever. E-commerce is not killing retailing jobs, we have more e-commerce jobs than we lost in brick and mortar retailing. Again, it is hard to imagine the new jobs automation creates, easy to see the jobs it displaces.
Wall Street Journal
September 5, 2017
Workers: Fear Not the Robot Apocalypse
Automation commonly creates more, and better-paying, jobs than it destroys. A case in point: U.S. retailing
https://www.wsj.com/articles/workers-fear-not-the-robot-apocalypse-1504631505?mg=prod/accounts-wsj
Those fears have repeatedly proven baseless. James Bessen, an economist at Boston University School of Law, has found in numerous episodes when technology was supposed to annihilate jobs, the opposite occurred. After the first automated tellers were installed in the 1970s, an executive at Wells, Fargo & Co. predicted ATMs would lead to fewer branches with even fewer staff. And indeed, the average branch used one-third fewer workers in 2004 than in 1988. But, Mr. Bessen found, ATMs made it much cheaper to operate a branch so banks opened more: Total branches rose 43% over that time. Today, banks employ more tellers than in 1980 and their duties have expanded to things ATMs can’t do such as “relationship banking.”
---
Retail is easily the largest U.S. industry now facing digital disruption and yet there is strong evidence e-commerce hasn’t reduced overall employment and has likely added to it. It is true that thousands of stores have closed. Between the end of 2007 and the middle of 2017, brick-and-mortar retailers lost the equivalent of 140,000full-time jobs, according to a forthcoming report by Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist at the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank. Electronic shopping jobs rose by only 126,000 in the same period.
But, Mr. Mandel notes, that excludes many jobs at fulfillment centers such as Fall River, which the federal Bureau of Labor Statisticstends to count in warehousing and storage. He notes that Kentucky had just 3,213 e-commerce workers in 2016 according to the BLS, yet Amazon employs more than 12,000 there. Warehousing has added 274,000 jobs nationwide since 2007. Mr. Mandel argues all of those are attributable tofulfillment centers and that thus total e-commerce employment has grown 401,000, nearly three times the brick-and-mortar drop. Mr. Mandel finds that fulfillment centers pay on average 31% better than brick and mortar stores in the same
Just an fyi on the Uber one, it pretty much killed jobs. The rideshare payments are so cheap because of how little the employees are actually paid. Since they have to pay for their own wear and tear, gas, and commercial insurance (which uber doesn't tell you about, so if you crash while ubering, guess whos paying for all the damages). I believe someone did the math and figured out the average 15 d/hr, is actually more around 3.
-
My best guess. 3-5 years from now automation is accessible but still slightly rare. Like seeing electric or hybrids. Human must be in driver seat and being attentive.
6-12 years - Common sight. 50% of cars are automated. Laws are relaxed as to attentiveness.
12-18 years - automation is almost a given. Still some drivers who want to drive themselves(kind of like manuals) attentive driver laws are completely removed. Cars are being made with seats facing inwards instead of towards windshield. Those who do not yet have driver licenses will never recieve them.
20+ Human driving is illegal.
Honestly, as we move more toward truly autonomous driving, I'm thinking the person sitting in the cab would be more akin to a security guard than a driver. It seems to me like interstate piracy could become an issue if all cargo was being shipped via autonomous trucks.
-
Just an fyi on the Uber one, it pretty much killed jobs. The rideshare payments are so cheap because of how little the employees are actually paid. Since they have to pay for their own wear and tear, gas, and commercial insurance (which uber doesn't tell you about, so if you crash while ubering, guess whos paying for all the damages). I believe someone did the math and figured out the average 15 d/hr, is actually more around 3.
Regarding Uber ... are you saying people don't act in their own best interest? Becuase every Uber driver I ask says they making enough money to make it worth their while.
-
The majority of the people who are being "obsoleted" are people that had almost no actual skill sets (calculus metaphor was a....metaphor, not literal). They are people who were physically performing activities with little to no actual intellect or training involved and very likely getting to retirement age anyway. With technological advancement hard things get easy(limited training/intellect) and new things are found that are hard to do(requiring higher education/intellect).
Example: Think of the ipad, my grandmother can't really use it but my two year old will easily in the next year if we let him.
I know it was a metaphor, but it was an apt metaphor. Jobs are being upskilled, but there is a significant segment of workers that don't have the ability to upskill. You are optimistic that technology will solve this, but I am less so.
A lot of the voter anger we've seen is due to a stagnant or declining middle class. You've got factory workers, textile workers, miners, and soon to be drivers, etc. out of jobs with no hope of finding equivalent replacements. Even for those that have the capability to upskill, there are far fewer jobs required to run new factories and the like.
Lesser skilled, repetitive, mechanical work has been the first to be replaced, but the process will work it's way up the chain. I've long thought that doctors will be obsoleted before nurses; nurses are needed for hands-on deliver of health care, but what do doctors do better than AI can?
I hope you are correct and I am wrong.
-
So what do you do? Do you block technological progress for the benefit of the few at the detriment of the many?
I don't have an answer for your first question. Basic living wage for all? That solves the issue of people from starving to death, but I'm not sure what society ends up looking like.
I assume your second question is rhetorical.
-
Regarding Uber ... are you saying people don't act in their own best interest? Becuase every Uber driver I ask says they making enough money to make it worth their while.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-much-uber-drivers-really-make-2017-12-01
Alot of people don't do the math behind the paycheck. Also a lot don't have the commercial insurance, so if you get into a fender your paying out of pocket, which can cost more then some ever make for uber.
-
I know it was a metaphor, but it was an apt metaphor. Jobs are being upskilled, but there is a significant segment of workers that don't have the ability to upskill. You are optimistic that technology will solve this, but I am less so.
A lot of the voter anger we've seen is due to a stagnant or declining middle class. You've got factory workers, textile workers, miners, and soon to be drivers, etc. out of jobs with no hope of finding equivalent replacements. Even for those that have the capability to upskill, there are far fewer jobs required to run new factories and the like.
Lesser skilled, repetitive, mechanical work has been the first to be replaced, but the process will work it's way up the chain. I've long thought that doctors will be obsoleted before nurses; nurses are needed for hands-on deliver of health care, but what do doctors do better than AI can?
I hope you are correct and I am wrong.
]
You are correct about doctors, and surgeons in particular. Robotic surgery will replace them. what they need to perfect now is "micro GPS" (the body moves and the scalpal need to adjust by millimeters on the fly).
They are getting it down. Here is a video of robotic surgery peeling a grape and then stitching it back together.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCZxVr29XdE
Done by a human here but not long until he is replaced by AI.
So, yes, surgeons are as much at risk to being obsolete as truckers.
Lawyers too. So much of the law if repetitive (contracts, RE closings) that these can be done by algos.
-
I don't have an answer for your first question. Basic living wage for all? That solves the issue of people from starving to death, but I'm not sure what society ends up looking like.
I assume your second question is rhetorical.
This sounds like it will create a permanent underclass. That will destroy society.
-
My best guess. 3-5 years from now automation is accessible but still slightly rare. Like seeing electric or hybrids. Human must be in driver seat and being attentive.
6-12 years - Common sight. 50% of cars are automated. Laws are relaxed as to attentiveness.
12-18 years - automation is almost a given. Still some drivers who want to drive themselves(kind of like manuals) attentive driver laws are completely removed. Cars are being made with seats facing inwards instead of towards windshield. Those who do not yet have driver licenses will never recieve them.
20+ Human driving is illegal.
There is an approximately 0% chance that human driving will be illegal in 20 years.
-
There is an approximately 0% chance that human driving will be illegal in 20 years.
And why is that? Robots are proven to be way safer and reliable. They don't fall asleep. They don't text. They don't lose focus. They don't drink.
This is actually very similar to the gun argument in the other thread. Does your need to feel freedom and be able to drive supercede those who would be alive if humans were banned from driving?
-
And why is that? Robots are proven to be way safer and reliable. They don't fall asleep. They don't text. They don't lose focus. They don't drink.
This is actually very similar to the gun argument in the other thread. Does your need to feel freedom and be able to drive supercede those who would be alive if humans were banned from driving?
The gun argument shows exactly why human driving will still be legal. Americans like their cars. They like to drive. FREEDOM!! That isn't going to be given up easily regardless of the validity of the idea.
-
The gun argument shows exactly why human driving will still be legal. Americans like their cars. They like to drive. FREEDOM!! That isn't going to be given up easily regardless of the validity of the idea.
Well first. I wasn't talking about just America. The world is a much larger place and easier to travel then ever.
2nd I believe the car debate will go quite differently then the gun debate has.
-
I don't have an answer for your first question. Basic living wage for all? That solves the issue of people from starving to death, but I'm not sure what society ends up looking like.
I assume your second question is rhetorical.
The major concern I have is not with people starving or standards of living shrinking. EVERYTHING (food, housing, travel, medical care, etc.,) will be cheaper and more accessible. Just as there is much more money available to aid the poor or those "left behind" today than there was 50 or 100 years ago, there will be that much more available in the future. I worry instead that too many will feel useless or left out even if their basic needs are provided - a kind of dispiriting of America. Right now we have too many "working poor" here. Will much greater numbers of non working lower middle or middle class be an improvement? I think so, but I'm not so sure.
-
2nd I believe the car debate will go quite differently then the gun debate has.
No way. People like to be in control. Hence, why so many fear flying when it's a far, far safer mode of transit.
Dont get me wrong, automation is coming. But, human driving being illegal, not happening anytime soon.
And, like many things in this country, this issue will see a huge urban vs. rural split. As big cities embrace the efficiency that automation will provide.
-
No way. People like to be in control. Hence, why so many fear flying when it's a far, far safer mode of transit.
People like the ILLUSION of being in control. An awful lot of people who die on our highways are victims who had no control of the situation whatsoever.
-
The major concern I have is not with people starving or standards of living shrinking. EVERYTHING (food, housing, travel, medical care, etc.,) will be cheaper and more accessible. Just as there is much more money available to aid the poor or those "left behind" today than there was 50 or 100 years ago, there will be that much more available in the future. I worry instead that too many will feel useless or left out even if their basic needs are provided - a kind of dispiriting of America. Right now we have too many "working poor" here. Will much greater numbers of non working lower middle or middle class be an improvement? I think so, but I'm not so sure.
This is a key argument a couple of years ago Bill Gates said you can live the life a of a rich person fr $40k.year. He was unfairly criticized. What he was saying is so many things are going to get a lot cheaper because of technology. You will not need as much money to live at a high-level in the future.
-
There is an approximately 0% chance that human driving will be illegal in 20 years.
The progression will be through insurance. You are free to drive your car but human driving insurance could be up to 10x driverless insurance. So, the car drives, $300/year in insurance. You drive, up to $3,000/year. Double it for your wife, quadruple it for one kid that wants to drive.
It will become prohibitively expensive. Then human drivers will be a nuisance and we will ban them.
Horses were the same way. Americans will never give up their horse in 1900. Autos took over because they were cheaper. Then the luddites that continued to use horses in cities were a nuisance and we banned them.
-
What about the truck stop hookers?
-
What about the truck stop hookers?
Replaced with sex robots. Duh.
-
Replaced with sex robots. Duh.
Companion robots will change the world more than autodrivers. They won't just be a pervert's toy, they will be pervasive, with men and women giving up the aggravation of pursuit and relationship maintenance with real humans, opting for the utterly gorgeous and wildly accommodating robot companion.
Tell me that's not true. You have faith in humanity's desire to be with real humans? Uh huh.
-
Companion robots will change the world more than autodrivers. They won't just be a pervert's toy, they will be pervasive, with men and women giving up the aggravation of pursuit and relationship maintenance with real humans, opting for the utterly gorgeous and wildly accommodating robot companion.
Tell me that's not true. You have faith in humanity's desire to be with real humans? Uh huh.
Yep. If you don't believe it, watch the movie "Her". I saw that movie when it first came out in 2013 and it's coming true even faster than the movie predicted.
I clearly remember a scene where everyone walking around looking at their phones instead of each other and thinking, "Wow, that's sad". And a couple of years later, it was happening in real life.
-
Companion robots will change the world more than autodrivers. They won't just be a pervert's toy, they will be pervasive, with men and women giving up the aggravation of pursuit and relationship maintenance with real humans, opting for the utterly gorgeous and wildly accommodating robot companion.
Tell me that's not true. You have faith in humanity's desire to be with real humans? Uh huh.
And with that, down goes the birth rate for unwanted pregnancies. Unemployment problem solved.
Eat Arby's!
-
And with that, down goes the birth rate for unwanted pregnancies. Unemployment problem solved.
Eat Arby's!
(sexy voice) Oh, Dr. B, you look like you had a hard day at work today. I have exactly what you want, me, a bag of beef n cheddards and extra Arby's sauce for later on, rawrrr.
-
Most of the studies I've seen say that long-haul trucker is about the worst job in the United States ... low pay, barely move at work (no exercise), eat crappy food, away from home a lot, boring.
This is true, many companies drivers deliver to treat them like crap, can’t use their rest rooms etc. Trucking companies have been forced to raise wages in the last 10-15 years but still face driver shortages.
Also, the long term thinking is if long-haul driver assisted trucks can drive between say 10PM - 6AM can they allow them to go faster than the posted speed limit. Again they are heavily driver assisted so they are safer than human only. And if they stay off the roads between, say, 7AM - 7PM we all benefit without that traffic clogging highways. But, in the future, you might see caravans of self-driving or driver assisted truck screaming down the interstate at 3AM at 100+ MPH each truck taking turns breaking the wind like a tour de France peloton.
That likely will never happen, everyone wants their Amazon Prime purchases ASAP so no idle time, the benefit of autonomous trucks would be no hours of service issues like human drivers face.
Honestly, as we move more toward truly autonomous driving, I'm thinking the person sitting in the cab would be more akin to a security guard than a driver. It seems to me like interstate piracy could become an issue if all cargo was being shipped via autonomous trucks.
I actually think piracy could be reduced (it’s bad now), trucks would be locked tight and there might not be any driver assisting hijackings
The progression will be through insurance. You are free to drive your car but human driving insurance could be up to 10x driverless insurance. So, the car drives, $300/year in insurance. You drive, up to $3,000/year. Double it for your wife, quadruple it for one kid that wants to drive.
It will become prohibitively expensive. Then human drivers will be a nuisance and we will ban them.
Horses were the same way. Americans will never give up their horse in 1900. Autos took over because they were cheaper. Then the luddites that continued to use horses in cities were a nuisance and we banned them.
Actuaries and competition will still drive insurance rates, the actual losses probably will not require such high rates for human drivers unless you believe that will be legislated to outlaw human drivers. Again I look to the recreational aspects of driving, motorcycling, boating, camping etc.
-
Yep. If you don't believe it, watch the movie "Her". I saw that movie when it first came out in 2013 and it's coming true even faster than the movie predicted.
I clearly remember a scene where everyone walking around looking at their phones instead of each other and thinking, "Wow, that's sad". And a couple of years later, it was happening in real life.
https://www.youtube.com/v/IrrADTN-dvg
Companion robots will change the world more than autodrivers. They won't just be a pervert's toy, they will be pervasive, with men and women giving up the aggravation of pursuit and relationship maintenance with real humans, opting for the utterly gorgeous and wildly accommodating robot companion.
Tell me that's not true. You have faith in humanity's desire to be with real humans? Uh huh.
What about a three-way with two humans and a robot that goes both ways? Would that be ok? What if the robot only goes one way? What about a robot that's completely autonomous (i.e. just sits in the corner and watches)?
-
What about a robot that's completely autonomous (i.e. just sits in the corner and watches)?
They call that model "The Dukiet", hey?
-
The major concern I have is not with people starving or standards of living shrinking. EVERYTHING (food, housing, travel, medical care, etc.,) will be cheaper and more accessible. Just as there is much more money available to aid the poor or those "left behind" today than there was 50 or 100 years ago, there will be that much more available in the future. I worry instead that too many will feel useless or left out even if their basic needs are provided - a kind of dispiriting of America. Right now we have too many "working poor" here. Will much greater numbers of non working lower middle or middle class be an improvement? I think so, but I'm not so sure.
Right, I agree with you here Lenny.
And god help me, I even agree with Heisy on this point.
-
Companion robots will change the world more than autodrivers. They won't just be a pervert's toy, they will be pervasive, with men and women giving up the aggravation of pursuit and relationship maintenance with real humans, opting for the utterly gorgeous and wildly accommodating robot companion.
Is there, like, an advance sign up sheet for this? Asking for a friend.
-
What about the truck stop hookers?
Paid in bitcoin
-
No way. People like to be in control. Hence, why so many fear flying when it's a far, far safer mode of transit.
Dont get me wrong, automation is coming. But, human driving being illegal, not happening anytime soon.
And, like many things in this country, this issue will see a huge urban vs. rural split. As big cities embrace the efficiency that automation will provide.
Human driving will become illegal or a non-option in the future, just doubtful it's in 20 years. Once driveless cars get to scale where they are the majority car on the road the human drivers become an issue in the system as they are unpredictable. Remove the human element and there are no traffic jams or gawker blocks, etc. Whole system becomes more efficient, fews cars are required, fewer deaths and lawsuits, repair requirements go down, etc etc etc etc.
-
Human driving will become illegal or a non-option in the future, just doubtful it's in 20 years. Once driveless cars get to scale where they are the majority car on the road the human drivers become an issue in the system as they are unpredictable. Remove the human element and there are no traffic jams or gawker blocks, etc. Whole system becomes more efficient, fews cars are required, fewer deaths and lawsuits, repair requirements go down, etc etc etc etc.
I agree with you. My doubt was on this happening in 20 years. I don't think that's a realistic timeframe. In my mind, you're going to need a couple of generations that grow up with and assimilate into driver-less vehicles, prior to human driving no longer being an option (either by law, market forces or both).
-
Well, if robot sex companions become the norm, look for fewer children to be born in developed countries. Which will ease overpopulation. Do you then encourage immigration to maintain the population? If you overindulge with the robot companion and you have a heart attack, will the manufacturer be liable?
-
Isn't Scoop a "sex companion"? Chat Sexbot?
-
There is a bar/restaurant near my house where a guy brings his Real Doll in on a regular basis. If you have seen "Lars and the Real Girl" you will know what I am talking about. I don't know whether to mock this guy or feel sorry for him.
-
Robots will "Destroy" society until we put a universal income.
UBI fascinates me. How is it that it will be paid for if no one works in the future? Where do the funds come from?
-
There is a bar/restaurant near my house where a guy brings his Real Doll in on a regular basis. If you have seen "Lars and the Real Girl" you will know what I am talking about. I don't know whether to mock this guy or feel sorry for him.
What do you expect when you don't let Glow hang out with her at home?
-
What do you expect when you don't let Glow hang out with her at home?
Meh, she's a brunette. Not his type.
-
UBI fascinates me. How is it that it will be paid for if no one works in the future? Where do the funds come from?
When robots are able to mass produce everything we need and only luxury items are sought after it won't matter to much.
-
There is a bar/restaurant near my house where a guy brings his Real Doll in on a regular basis. If you have seen "Lars and the Real Girl" you will know what I am talking about. I don't know whether to mock this guy or feel sorry for him.
That's an easy one. Sympathy is in order.
-
When robots are able to mass produce everything we need and only luxury items are sought after it won't matter to much.
If I understand correctly, the robots will be doing everything while we all just sit around and do nothing? What becomes our sense of purpose? Work is a sense of purpose. That sounds like population explosion potentially as people get it on, need for housing, transportation, and the rest. One of the things that kept my wife limited on the number of kids was money, work, being tired from work. Now we're saying money is no object, don't have to work, we're going to have all this time on our hands.
Thankfully I will be dead by the time this utopian existence is thrust upon us. Feels like a very bad societal ending.
-
That's an easy one. Sympathy is in order.
If it's simply a doll, yes. But if it has any sort of animatronic features (beyond that of a motor that simply spins a tiny weight around), you mercilessly mock him as you would any nerd like Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, etc.
Then you ask if she has a sister.
-
If it's simply a doll, yes. But if it has any sort of animatronic features (beyond that of a motor that simply spins a tiny weight around), you mercilessly mock him as you would any nerd like Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, etc.
Then you ask if she has a sister.
I don't think it has animatronic features, but it does have anatomic features.
:P
-
I don't think it has animatronic features, but it does have anatomic features.
:P
(https://i.giphy.com/msKNSs8rmJ5m.gif)
-
I don't think it has animatronic features, but it does have anatomic features.
:P
I figured as much. Frankly, some sort of congratulations might be in order. Relationships - especially the short, short-term ones - with real people are expensive... this guy's found a way to cut out a perpetuity of ordinary expense simply by making a one-time capital investment. Sure there may be a perceived difference in quality of the finished goods, but beauty is in the eye of beholder on this one, and it's a good bet this guy sees women as more of a commodity anyway, so effective return > actual return. Not to mention, it's probably a win-win situation for both this guy and any real woman with whom he might otherwise interact.
-
I figured as much. Frankly, some sort of congratulations might be in order. Relationships - especially the short, short-term ones - with real people are expensive... this guy's found a way to cut out a perpetuity of ordinary expense simply by making a one-time capital investment. Sure there may be a perceived difference in quality of the finished goods, but beauty is in the eye of beholder on this one, and it's a good bet this guy sees women as more of a commodity anyway, so effective return > actual return. Not to mention, it's probably a win-win situation for both this guy and any real woman with whom he might otherwise interact.
I guess she is the perfect woman - attractive, never turns down sexytime, and doesn't talk.
-
Sadly, there are those who think that way. Having made it 26 years, I understand the joy and magic is in the shared journey. But it isn't easy. And for some, the mindless, non challenging companion bot will be easier than the mystery or the compromise.
-
I don't think it has animatronic features, but it does have anatomic features.
:P
It really comes down to which porn star was used to mold the robot's va-jay-jay, a/ina?
-
Burger-Flipping Robot Set For Big Rollout In California
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/burger-flipping-robot-set-big-rollout-california
-
If I understand correctly, the robots will be doing everything while we all just sit around and do nothing?
No, it leaves time for unlimited Beer Summits at White Lives Matter Ranch in Idaho.
-
Sadly, there are those who think that way. Having made it 26 years, I understand the joy and magic is in the shared journey. But it isn't easy. And for some, the mindless, non challenging companion bot will be easier than the mystery or the compromise.
+1000. Life without romance and all its highs, lows and in betweens would be hollow. 44 years later I wouldn't think of trading her for a bot, even a really hot one!
-
If I understand correctly, the robots will be doing everything while we all just sit around and do nothing? What becomes our sense of purpose? Work is a sense of purpose. That sounds like population explosion potentially as people get it on, need for housing, transportation, and the rest. One of the things that kept my wife limited on the number of kids was money, work, being tired from work. Now we're saying money is no object, don't have to work, we're going to have all this time on our hands.
Thankfully I will be dead by the time this utopian existence is thrust upon us. Feels like a very bad societal ending.
Right now most of the jobs that will be automated are should crushing repetitive task jobs. Do Cashiers or Truckers really get a sense of purpose from their job?
And, again, history shows technology is a net creator of jobs. Spreadsheets removed the soul crushing jobs of accounting clerk that just wrote numbers in ledgers and created a far more satisfying position of Financial Analyst.
Smart phones have created the gig economy. Most Uber drivers have multiple jobs, not just the soul crushing job of driving people to the airport everyday.
Finally, technology lower costs. Bill Gates once commented that in a few years 40,000/year will be enough to live the same lifestyle as $100,000+ Now. Everything is going to get cheaper. So, in the future, if you can eek out $3,500 a month (in bitcoin!) doing something you like, that might be much more fulfilling than driving a truck today.
-
I guess she is the perfect woman - attractive, never turns down sexytime, and doesn't talk.
Do other patrons say "hey, nice bot on her"?
-
I guess she is the perfect woman - attractive, never turns down sexytime, and doesn't talk.
but can she make a sammich?
-
but can she make a sammich?
That's what Grub Hub is for.
-
That is damn interesting, Benny.
Interesting how .. I thought .. truck drivers were not well paid, working for scraps. That may be true .. but with massive shortages, you'd think they could demand a pretty good wage. (Which would hasten the advent of robot drivers, of course..)
We are constantly looking for Truck Drivers and they make good coin.
-
We are constantly looking for Truck Drivers and they make good coin.
What is good coin? Net of any cost they incur.
-
We are constantly looking for Truck Drivers and they make good coin.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/truck-driver-salary-SRCH_KO0,12.htm
Average .. $43k, which is just above the US' average of $39,400.
And indeed, I'd like to know what their expenses are.
-
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/truck-driver-salary-SRCH_KO0,12.htm
Average .. $43k, which is just above the US' average of $39,400.
And indeed, I'd like to know what their expenses are.
$43k, barely move, away from family, expenses, bad food, very boring.
Gee, wonder why we have such a shortage of drivers?
-
$43k, barely move, away from family, expenses, bad food, very boring.
Gee, wonder why we have such a shortage of drivers?
$43k, get to see the country, meet new people, can save on housing since you won't be there much, don't end the day physically exhausted.
I'm more on your side, but I can see its appeal to some people.
-
$43k, get to see the country, meet new people, can save on housing since you won't be there much, don't end the day physically exhausted.
I'm more on your side, but I can see its appeal to some people.
Let's be honest - and I don't mean this condescendingly - the people who choose a career as a long-haul truck driver aren't opting between that and trial attorney, cardiac surgeon or professional golfer. They're generally lower-skilled, lesser-educated people with corresponding job opportunities. They're driving a truck or working in a warehouse, hanging plaster, painting houses, etc. These are all respectable ways to earn a living, but none are rife with excitement or what some of us would see as personal fulfillment.
So while some of the college-educated people here choose to look down their noses on the "very boring" careers of truck drivers, keep in mind that it's all relative to that person's likely career alternatives.
-
Let's be honest - and I don't mean this condescendingly - the people who choose a career as a long-haul truck driver aren't opting between that and trial attorney, cardiac surgeon or professional golfer. They're generally lower-skilled, lesser-educated people with corresponding job opportunities. They're driving a truck or working in a warehouse, hanging plaster, painting houses, etc. These are all respectable ways to earn a living, but none are rife with excitement or what some of us would see as personal fulfillment.
So while some of the college-educated people here choose to look down their noses on the "very boring" careers of truck drivers, keep in mind that it's all relative to that person's likely career alternatives.
Totally agree here. $43k is squarely an average salary for a large section US citizens. It's hard to remember that ~75% of the employment force has only achieved a HS diploma -- not to mention another 15% who have community college/2 year degrees, opening up higher salary ranges.
-
Finally, technology lower costs. Bill Gates once commented that in a few years 40,000/year will be enough to live the same lifestyle as $100,000+ Now. Everything is going to get cheaper. So, in the future, if you can eek out $3,500 a month (in bitcoin!) doing something you like, that might be much more fulfilling than driving a truck today.
I agree with much of your post, but I'm not sure I agree with you (or more accurately, Gates) here.
25 years ago, my total "media" bill - cable TV, a newspaper, local/long-distance phone service - was about $75/month, and it was all my family needed or wanted. Now, our media bill - TV, wireless internet, cellphones, newspaper, music, apps - is about $350. And there are only two of us, so we don't even have spring for phones for our kids. Nor am including the cost of the actual tools - laptops, tablets, etc. Yes, there has been inflation, but the latter figure represents about twice as high a percentage of our pay. Technology has significantly raised most family's media costs.
Beyond that, health care is the great wild card. My wife could have retired 5 years ago except for concerns about health-care costs, which have only gone up since then. Doesn't matter if it's pre-Obamacare, ACA or whatever TrumpCare evolves into, there is no end in sight.
It seems that technological advances only make health care MORE expensive - there are more ways to keep people healthy and/or alive, and those ways cost big money.
Example: Just this month, my wife needed surgery to remove cataracts in both eyes. In the past, it was a relatively cheap expense covered mostly by insurance. But now, they have great lenses that work better ... but insurance doesn't cover them. They're her eyes. She needs them to work well. So we paid thousands and thousands and thousands more for the upgraded lenses.
Increases in health-care costs have totally overshadowed the raises my wife has gotten at work. There is no end to the increases, and there does not seem to be political will for universal health care (even though the current occupant of the WH said several times on the campaign trail that "we must have" it).
My wife and I are not rich, but we are comfortable; health care is the only thing that makes me nervous about our financial futures. I don't see how robots will alleviate those costs. Indeed, I do see how they could increase them.
-
I agree with much of your post, but I'm not sure I agree with you (or more accurately, Gates) here.
25 years ago, my total "media" bill - cable TV, a newspaper, local/long-distance phone service - was about $75/month, and it was all my family needed or wanted. Now, our media bill - TV, wireless internet, cellphones, newspaper, music, apps - is about $350. And there are only two of us, so we don't even have spring for phones for our kids. Nor am including the cost of the actual tools - laptops, tablets, etc. Yes, there has been inflation, but the latter figure represents about twice as high a percentage of our pay. Technology has significantly raised most family's media costs.
Beyond that, health care is the great wild card. My wife could have retired 5 years ago except for concerns about health-care costs, which have only gone up since then. Doesn't matter if it's pre-Obamacare, ACA or whatever TrumpCare evolves into, there is no end in sight.
It seems that technological advances only make health care MORE expensive - there are more ways to keep people healthy and/or alive, and those ways cost big money.
Example: Just this month, my wife needed surgery to remove cataracts in both eyes. In the past, it was a relatively cheap expense covered mostly by insurance. But now, they have great lenses that work better ... but insurance doesn't cover them. They're her eyes. She needs them to work well. So we paid thousands and thousands and thousands more for the upgraded lenses.
Increases in health-care costs have totally overshadowed the raises my wife has gotten at work. There is no end to the increases, and there does not seem to be political will for universal health care (even though the current occupant of the WH said several times on the campaign trail that "we must have" it).
My wife and I are not rich, but we are comfortable; health care is the only thing that makes me nervous about our financial futures. I don't see how robots will alleviate those costs. Indeed, I do see how they could increase them.
Gates has argued, and I agree, that disruption is coming to the health insurance industry. See the Amazon, Berkshire and JP Morgan announcement on getting into the healthcare industry. See how that announcement knocked $40 billion off the healthcare stocks.
Regarding the price you pay for intellectual property , like your cable bill, cryptos and al-la carte pricing is coming.
So be patient grasshopper, the disruption is coming and prices are coming down.
-
Good job Smuggles, you got another topic locked with your hysteria.
-
A few more and I’ll catch the reigning champion ... MU82
-
$43k, get to see the country, meet new people, can save on housing since you won't be there much, don't end the day physically exhausted.
I'm more on your side, but I can see its appeal to some people.
True but what we do not know is expenses. Who pays for those truck stop meals? nights in a hotel? Other expenses? So what is the “net” income of a trucker?
As noted above, the country has an acute shortage of Truckers. I think that is the answer.
-
No longhaul trucker is making $43K in just a 40 hour work week although now with E-logs they at least can't cheat on their HOS.
-
A few more and I’ll catch the reigning champion ... MU82
AAPL - $172.43
-
A few more and I’ll catch the reigning champion ... MU82
Listen. You both need to knock off the political BS! Period.
-
Listen. You both need to knock off the political BS! Period.
I'm done, will now only report so political threads can be killed off after 1 post.
-
Yep, new guidelines: If MU82 or Tugg open a non-basketball thread, it will be locked instantly.
Even if it's about Arby's, which cannot be discussed enough.
-
Even if it's about Arby's, which cannot be discussed enough.
You're a monster.
-
I'm done, will now only report so political threads can be killed off after 1 post.
Another... I'm gonna quote your pm here for all to see.
Are you saying knock off the right-wing political arguments or all political arguments?
Becuase I don't see you calling out 82, TSmith, Jesmu (who wished violence on gun owners) Pukuni, Sultan etc. You seem to let lefty political threads run until I jump in with a right-wing argument and then close it and call me out.
Make you a deal, I'm done with politics, and I'll report all political threads so you can shut down IMMEDIATELY to kill it all off for good. (hint, any post with the title of "gun" don't even bother reading it, just close it).
The appropriate thing to do is report political posts. The wrong thing to do is respond with more politics and throw fits about how everyone else doesn't get in trouble.
I barely read superbar threads, and you can't assume a moderator has seen anything until you report it. 2nd, you're blind if you think we just let posts about the current president go. There are plenty of rips on Obama left on the board (if you'd care to search)... you need to let crap go...clearly we do! Finally, you have no idea we've warned other folks (hint, lots), so stop playing the victim.
-
That was a real lack of class that you posted my PM. That was supposed to be between me and you.
Okay, I'll do it again then. You know what the real lack of class is? You messing up my long weekend with BS! Stop disrespecting our rules.
-
Okay, I'll do it again then. You know what the real lack of class is? You messing up my long weekend with BS! Stop disrespecting our rules.
I'm not defending Heisy here, and I agree with you. I would like nothing more on 'Scoop than to see the politics stop.
But, unless there's something posted elsewhere that I don't know about, the "rule" stated on the pinned thread is: "Anything political posted here will be swiftly removed, and if you violate the rule too frequently, you'll find yourself without a place to post."
Respectfully, if you have a rule that is only kind of enforced, you honestly shouldn't be terribly surprised that people violate it (and that is not a reference to selective or biased enforcement). The rule, as posted, is a strict prohibition. The rule, as applied, is politics is allowed until it goes to far. What could go wrong?
-
Can I start a thread about the Russian curling doper? Or Arbys?
-
Okay, I'll do it again then. You know what the real lack of class is? You messing up my long weekend with BS! Stop disrespecting our rules.
Nice
(https://media.giphy.com/media/111ebonMs90YLu/giphy.gif)
-
Me after popping into this thread briefly.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/Fs09dnTdaW6D6/200.gif)
-
Come on, Rocky!
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/577/952/a7b.gif)
JUST DO IT!!!
-
I'm not defending Heisy here, and I agree with you. I would like nothing more on 'Scoop than to see the politics stop.
But, unless there's something posted elsewhere that I don't know about, the "rule" stated on the pinned thread is: "Anything political posted here will be swiftly removed, and if you violate the rule too frequently, you'll find yourself without a place to post."
Respectfully, if you have a rule that is only kind of enforced, you honestly shouldn't be terribly surprised that people violate it (and that is not a reference to selective or biased enforcement). The rule, as posted, is a strict prohibition. The rule, as applied, is politics is allowed until it goes to far. What could go wrong?
1. We do our best.
2. The problem is when threads don't start political. There's a Facebook thread that starts normal, than goes awry. Is the Foreign Disinformation thread political? It can be, let's see .. oh, crap, there we go. School shootings? Close that down right away? UW free tuition?
I haven't had enough Arby's in my lifetime yet, so I'm still hopeful we can talk about these things like gentlemen.
-
1. We do our best.
2. The problem is when threads don't start political. There's a Facebook thread that starts normal, than goes awry. Is the Foreign Disinformation thread political? It can be, let's see .. oh, crap, there we go. School shootings? Close that down right away? UW free tuition?
I haven't had enough Arby's in my lifetime yet, so I'm still hopeful we can talk about these things like gentlemen.
I know you do, Rocky, and I appreciate it. That said, there are a lot of threads that start overtly political, and many more that are thinly veiled political from the outset. I absolutely appreciate and respect your eternal desire to trust people to discuss things like adults. I question the wisdom...but I appreciate and respect it.
-
Yep, new guidelines: If MU82 or Tugg open a non-basketball thread, it will be locked instantly.
Even if it's about Arby's, which cannot be discussed enough.
I heard Arby's voted third party this last election cycle...
*runs away*
-
I heard Arby's voted third party this last election cycle...
*runs away*
Damn Russian influence
-
Yep, new guidelines: If MU82 or Tugg open a non-basketball thread, it will be locked instantly.
Even if it's about Arby's, which cannot be discussed enough.
Well, that's not fair. My posts about religion, for example, have led to some excellent conversations. But whatevs. Certainly not gonna lose sleep over stuff in ScoopLand.
And unlike some, I won't beg for others to get shut down or banned. Unlike Smuggles, I don't need people to recognize me as a genius; I just like to chat about interesting stuff with people I respect.
-
About 5 beef n cheddars will clear that feeling of unfairness up.
-
Well, that's not fair. My posts about religion, for example, have led to some excellent conversations. But whatevs. Certainly not gonna lose sleep over stuff in ScoopLand.
And unlike some, I won't beg for others to get shut down or banned. Unlike Smuggles, I don't need people to recognize me as a genius; I just like to chat about interesting stuff with people I respect.
You like to make snarly unnecessary political remarks. See your childish remark in the Russian Doping thread that got it shut down. Totally unnecessary and something you constantly do. Just stop.
I'm done with political talk here as long as the mods are serious about shutting it down. But if they do not, I will not let your wacko views go unchallenged.
-
You like to make snarly unnecessary political remarks. See your childish remark in the Russian Doping thread that got it shut down. Totally unnecessary and something you constantly do. Just stop.
I'm done with political talk here as long as the mods are serious about shutting it down. But if they do not, I will not let your wacko views go unchallenged.
Personal attacks like this are also against the rules. I assume "mentally unstable" and other similar phrases would fall under that umbrella as well.
-
You like to make snarly unnecessary political remarks. See your childish remark in the Russian Doping thread that got it shut down. Totally unnecessary and something you constantly do. Just stop.
I'm done with political talk here as long as the mods are serious about shutting it down. But if they do not, I will not let your wacko views go unchallenged.
Should we let your wacko views go unchallenged?
-
Should we let your wacko views go unchallenged?
No, and your wacko views should not go unchallenged either, That is why I'm done with them as long as the political talk is truly banned.
I understand why it should be banned ... in the end it is all selected true facts to support an opinion. Everyone does it that way. And, in the end, it is not productive and is merely yelling at each other. No one is ever going to change their mind if it is a yelling contest.
So, I agree to end it, as long as everyone else can move on.