I dunno...the Justice democrats could be a significant boon in solid blue states like NY or the West Coast. I question there ability to not be self defeating in other parts of the country however.Even in blue states the "take down even otherwise decent Democrats who don't sign on to our pledges" wavers between risky and ineffective. And their decision to ignore state & local races is just ignoring one of the biggest problems Democrats have.
Ah...I guess I was reading between the lines and interpreting them going after folks on the state or local level. If they are ignoring those folks as well, I agree it's going to have limited effectiveness.
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!
I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.
Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most jobs still don't get moved abroad. 9 out of 10 jobs lost in manufacturing are replaced by automation.
Right now 3.5 million people are employed as truck drivers. Out of 152 million total jobs, thats roughly 2.3%. Somewhere down the road, those jobs are going away, maybe not in 5 years, but within 20 years for sure. Those jobs aren't going over seas.
No on has an answer to this problem, but as long as the conversation is about "jobs going over seas," people will always feel lied to because no matter how much talk goes on about that issue, they're still going to lose their jobs.
You are confusing two separate issues. Automation has been a major factor for two hundred years, and it generally had a net positive effect on overall employment and the economy as a whole.
Outsourcing has been a tremendous advantage to the wealthy, but terrible for the lower and middle class. Throw in a layer of illegal immigrants, and things haven't been this bad for the middle and lower classes in many years.
As long as Democrats fail to understand these issues, and fail to address the very real need for decent, well paid jobs, they are going to just keep failing as a party.
EDIT: Also, I call b!*#!&$~ on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!
1) Apple has never made iphones in America. Jobs can't be outsourced that never existed here. You could argue against cheap imports, but you can't lose jobs you never had.
2) FoxConn has already eliminated 60,000 manufacturing jobs in China. That's just the tip of the ice berg, as they employ 1.2 million people and are looking to automate 30% of all production by 2020. Even China isn't immune to losing jobs to automation.
The simple truth is that the US is the second largest producer of manufactured goods in the world. We peaked in 1979 at the number of manufacturing jobs and since then have lost 7 million jobs, but our total output has doubled. Domestically, GM employs less than a third of their 70's peak number of workers, but produces more cars domestically than it ever has. Since 1997 the US steel industry has shed 42% of it's workforce, but increased production by 38%.
This is why every time you complain about neo-liberals and globalization I shake my head. So few jobs go over seas compared to how many are lost to automation and it's only a matter of time until the jobs overseas are lost to automation as well. They aren't coming back. Short of stopping the technological advance of the human race, there is no "there" to come back from.
When Google perfects self-driving cars, what is your answer for the 3.5 million Americans who make a living driving trucks? This is the question that we are already facing across numerous industries. I've watched it my whole life, because my dad was one of those guys who designed automated factories. It's been going on for decades.
A friend of mine used to work at the local Seagate "plant." They don't actually produce things there, they just prototype it. They design the process by which goods are manufactured. It's all done by controls though and the factory is built somewhere else. Sometimes domestically, sometimes overseas. Either way, it's largely automated.
Cry about the jobs going overseas if you want, but if the production comes back, its coming back automated.
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.
Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.
Watch this video and predict the number of forklift operators Amazon employs.
They do still employ a couple, but the number in comparison to a typical warehouse 10 or 15 years ago is very small. They aren't the only company to be using this kind of technology either. You better believe that UPS, Fedex, Walmart and Target are using more and more automated warehouses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cry about the jobs going overseas if you want, but if the production comes back, its coming back automated.
As long as this is the only answer the Democratic party has for the problem of middle class jobs that dont require a masters degree and 60k in debt disappearing they can look forward to increasing marginalization for at least a generation or two until people forget that such a thing used to exist.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cry about the jobs going overseas if you want, but if the production comes back, its coming back automated.As long as this is the only answer the Democratic party has for the problem of middle class jobs that dont require a masters degree and 60k in debt disappearing they can look forward to increasing marginalization for at least a generation or two until people forget that such a thing used to exist.I suppose we could steal a page from Trump and promise we'll bring jobs back and then not deliver.
Or maybe we could scapegoat some minority group and blame them for all the white people's problems.What's your theory?
Just putting a fact out there. Its the problem the country has and the party has decided on throwing out a hard truth and losing a bunch of elections rather than even pretending to come up with a viable plan to sell and try to deal with it.
The fact that they seem eager to rubber stamp any trade deal that makes it easier for those jobs to disappear (until people take note and rage at them, then its a deal to quietly get passed under cover of another distraction) doesn't help their cause.
Address the problem of the shrinking middle class beyond "tough s!&&, automation, the jobs aren't coming back" or continue to lose ground everywhere that isn't the northeast or west coast.
Edit: Also that bolded part there? Thats a prime example of the kind of thinking that turns people away from the Democratic party. A lack of good middle class jobs isn't only a white people problem its a citizens of the U.S. problem. Its as much a ceiling for minorities in the U.S. as it is for po white trash.
Near as I can tell, it's probably based on this report. I haven't dug through the whole thing, but it looks like it's based on the last ~15 years and the basic argument is that manufacturing output has increased, but employment has shrunk. The difference between the workers that would have been needed at the old productivity rates and the actual numbers employed is what they're looking at.EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.
Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.
So basically "what-if" combined with a failure to count job expansion due to the increased production product.
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.
Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.
Watch this video and predict the number of forklift operators Amazon employs.
They do still employ a couple, but the number in comparison to a typical warehouse 10 or 15 years ago is very small. They aren't the only company to be using this kind of technology either. You better believe that UPS, Fedex, Walmart and Target are using more and more automated warehouses.
For someone who complains about people replying to them and changing the subject I am surprised you would respond in this manner.
I was talking about the 9/10 statistic you cited specifically. What do you have to back that up?
So basically "what-if" combined with a failure to count job expansion due to the increased production product.Near as I can tell, it's probably based on this report. I haven't dug through the whole thing, but it looks like it's based on the last ~15 years and the basic argument is that manufacturing output has increased, but employment has shrunk. The difference between the workers that would have been needed at the old productivity rates and the actual numbers employed is what they're looking at.EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.
Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.
I don't even under stand what you mean. "What-if"? How do you even talk about losses due to automation if you don't consider what it would have taken without the increased automation?
We are manufacturing more now than we were 15 years ago and we're using a lot less people to do it. No idea what "job expansion" you're talking about.
(1) Jobs that never existed cannot be lost.
(2) Increased production also increases jobs in the supply chain.
If you pretend that (1) is false, and ignore (2), then you aren't making an honest assessment of the situation at hand.
I'm not saying that automation is blameless in job loss, I'm saying that 9/10 production jobs in the IS have been lost to automation is bogus.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most jobs still don't get moved abroad. 9 out of 10 jobs lost in manufacturing are replaced by automation.
Right now 3.5 million people are employed as truck drivers. Out of 152 million total jobs, thats roughly 2.3%. Somewhere down the road, those jobs are going away, maybe not in 5 years, but within 20 years for sure.
Along with cab drivers, delivery drivers, bus drivers, et cetera. Some high end limo and race car drivers will likely survive for the novelty / elitism factor, but overall the era of the professional driver is about to end.
...and that's probably a good thing. In the long run.
I say 'in the long run' because the short term disruption of all those people losing their jobs will likely be harmful to the economy as a whole (and certainly to those individuals). However, history has shown that people eventually find other occupations and the increased efficiency of the new technology helps spur long term economic growth.
I say 'probably' because we are now seeing so many disruptive technologies making large numbers of jobs obsolete that people may not be able to adapt fast enough any more. In theory, we could be reaching a point where we can automate nearly everything that most people can do... leaving few jobs available. I don't think it will get quite that bad, but many people will certainly struggle to find new jobs. Indeed, HAVE BEEN struggling and will continue as machine learning starts to make even complex tasks automated.
Most jobs still don't get moved abroad. 9 out of 10 jobs lost in manufacturing are replaced by automation.
Right now 3.5 million people are employed as truck drivers. Out of 152 million total jobs, thats roughly 2.3%. Somewhere down the road, those jobs are going away, maybe not in 5 years, but within 20 years for sure.
Along with cab drivers, delivery drivers, bus drivers, et cetera. Some high end limo and race car drivers will likely survive for the novelty / elitism factor, but overall the era of the professional driver is about to end.
...and that's probably a good thing. In the long run.
I say 'in the long run' because the short term disruption of all those people losing their jobs will likely be harmful to the economy as a whole (and certainly to those individuals). However, history has shown that people eventually find other occupations and the increased efficiency of the new technology helps spur long term economic growth.
I say 'probably' because we are now seeing so many disruptive technologies making large numbers of jobs obsolete that people may not be able to adapt fast enough any more. In theory, we could be reaching a point where we can automate nearly everything that most people can do... leaving few jobs available. I don't think it will get quite that bad, but many people will certainly struggle to find new jobs. Indeed, HAVE BEEN struggling and will continue as machine learning starts to make even complex tasks automated.
I'm not convinced the american people are willing to accept self driving cars enough for them to really take off, which they'll need to do in order to actually be safer. Kind of a herd immunity thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along with cab drivers, delivery drivers, bus drivers, et cetera. Some high end limo and race car drivers will likely survive for the novelty / elitism factor, but overall the era of the professional driver is about to end.
...and that's probably a good thing. In the long run.
I say 'in the long run' because the short term disruption of all those people losing their jobs will likely be harmful to the economy as a whole (and certainly to those individuals). However, history has shown that people eventually find other occupations and the increased efficiency of the new technology helps spur long term economic growth.
I say 'probably' because we are now seeing so many disruptive technologies making large numbers of jobs obsolete that people may not be able to adapt fast enough any more. In theory, we could be reaching a point where we can automate nearly everything that most people can do... leaving few jobs available. I don't think it will get quite that bad, but many people will certainly struggle to find new jobs. Indeed, HAVE BEEN struggling and will continue as machine learning starts to make even complex tasks automated.
I think you might be more optimistic than I am.
As jobs get increasingly automated, larger and larger portions of the public are not going to be able to find meaningful levels of employment, which is in turn going to increase the power and influence of those folks who own the various businesses. We'll need a fundamental shift in how society is organized and run, to a scale I don't think we have seen since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Right now I don't get any remote inkling that our government is prepared to do that. We'll either need to set harsh limits if not roll back automation and practice trade protectionism on massive scale, or be willing to subsidize large segments of the population which will be permanently unemployed. I don't see any real sense this is possible right now, given the state of the world and how much the right is fighting against other forms of government personal subsidies (e.g. healthcare).
Do you have some reason to think it's being ignored?Doesn't fit his narrative of "Dey Took Er Jobs!"
... ?
Basically the same narrative that has people hating NAFTA.Do you have some reason to think it's being ignored?Doesn't fit his narrative of "Dey Took Er Jobs!"
This does not follow. I said that the statement "9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs have been lost to automation," is bogus. All other claims I made were directly related to that assertion.
Assigning me positions or motivations is neither probative nor helpful. But have fun with your strawman or whatever.
Of course, actual facts don't matter. Just look at how many people blame Hillary Clinton for George Bush's trade deal.
This is a full-tilt strawman train running off the rails. Jesus.
Not every post is directed at you. There is a reason that was a stand alone post.Of course, actual facts don't matter. Just look at how many people blame Hillary Clinton for George Bush's trade deal.This is a full-tilt strawman train running off the rails. Jesus.
Well, your previous post WAS directed at me, and talked about "narrative," then your very next post was, "of course, actual facts don't matter."
So if you meant to separate those two statements you went out of your way to link them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys. GUYS
Of course, actual facts don't matter. Just look at how many people blame Hillary Clinton for George Bush's trade deal.
"The agreement goes back to the 1992 presidential campaign when Bill Clinton ran against incumbent President George H.W. Bush. On Aug. 12 of that year, Bush finished negotiating NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would support NAFTA if elected, but would demand supplemental agreements to protect worker rights, the environment and sudden import surges.
After Clinton won the presidency, his administration negotiated the side agreements and made NAFTA one of its top priorities. Vice President Al Gore memorably debated Ross Perot about NAFTA on CNN's "Larry King Live." Congress approved the agreements, and it was hailed as a major political victory for the new president.
As first lady, Hillary Clinton publicly supported her husband's position. In 1996, in a visit with unionized garment workers, she said the words Obama now quotes. "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," said Clinton, according to an Associated Press report.
Clinton wrote positively of her husband's efforts on NAFTA in her memoir "Living History," published in 2003:
"Creating a free trade zone in North America — the largest free trade zone in the world — would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal."
Hmm, turns out there were some people who were not into free trade after all...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Facts don't matter" is the current environment. Depending on whom one talks to as to whose beloved facts it is that do not matter.
Muh trade deals! Muh safe space! Muh missing factory jobs! Muh political party of choice! Muh celebutards!
Muh bread and circuses!
"Facts don't matter" is the current environment. Depending on whom one talks to as to whose beloved facts it is that do not matter.
Muh trade deals! Muh safe space! Muh missing factory jobs! Muh political party of choice! Muh celebutards!
Muh bread and circuses!
One could take this argument even further and claim that facts matter increasingly less the farther one gets from hard science.
One could take this argument even further and claim that facts matter increasingly less the farther one gets from hard science."Facts don't matter" is the current environment. Depending on whom one talks to as to whose beloved facts it is that do not matter.
Muh trade deals! Muh safe space! Muh missing factory jobs! Muh political party of choice! Muh celebutards!
Muh bread and circuses!
*nods in agreement* One could.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Democratic proposals for the loss of manufacturing jobs was retraining, and new fields like green energy.
Many workers didn't want that, they wanted their old jobs back.
This is why the options in this category are mostly "be honest, and lose those workers" or "lie".
Cry about the jobs going overseas if you want, but if the production comes back, its coming back automated.As long as this is the only answer the Democratic party has for the problem of middle class jobs that dont require a masters degree and 60k in debt disappearing they can look forward to increasing marginalization for at least a generation or two until people forget that such a thing used to exist.
And if you think it's just Democrats who don't have an answer for automation, feel free to share with me what the Republican strategy is to deal with automation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: Also, I call b#&%~+@! on the 9 out of 10 manufacturing jobs statistic. There are literally hundreds of thousands of employees working at a SINGLE Chinese factory doing high tech manufacturing. The idea that it was robots that replaced American workers is demonstratively false!I was also curious about that statistic. I presume it is extrapolated across an extremely long timeframe and then "adjusted" for modern population numbers. Like, "over the last 100 years XYZ# of jobs have been lost to automation which is about 90%." Without actually accounting for the corollary increases in manufacturing required to support that new efficiency, but double (or triple, or quadruple, or more) counting those new jobs when lost to newer efficiencies.
Otherwise, the 9/10 number simply doesn't hold up.
Watch this video and predict the number of forklift operators Amazon employs.
They do still employ a couple, but the number in comparison to a typical warehouse 10 or 15 years ago is very small. They aren't the only company to be using this kind of technology either. You better believe that UPS, Fedex, Walmart and Target are using more and more automated warehouses.
For someone who complains about people replying to them and changing the subject I am surprised you would respond in this manner.
I was talking about the 9/10 statistic you cited specifically. What do you have to back that up?
US Car production from 1960 to 2015 We hit peak production in 1999 at 13 million vehicles, but we're close to that still right now after dropping to 5 million during the recession. But again, we're doing it with fewer people. You can also compare it to car sales. I haven't plugged those numbers into excel to run a regression line, but eyeballing it, the ratios seem pretty similar, an increase/decrease in car sales sees an approximately proportional change in domestic manufacturing. That means, an increase in cars sold isn't coming from just outside the US in production, but has a commensurate increase in production here. We aren't losing our share of the jobs in the industry.
Auto industry is back, but not the jobs.
You can check BLS statistics, their site is goofy and I can't link you directly to search results, but google this "bls auto worker statistics" and set the window from 1997 to 2017. You'll see that we peaked at 1.3 million auto workers in 1999 (when we produced 13 million vehicles) and now employ about 850,000 (and produce 12 million vehicles).
The jobs didn't leave. They don't exist any more.
Edit: Side note, in the Carrier deal that Trump negotiated back in November, the company promised to invest $16 million in their factory in Indiana. 3 guesses what that means.
@BigDT - it really doesn't matter if you believe me or not. It's the truth. We can cancel every trade deal with every country in the world, and impose massive tariffs; we can cancel globalization. It won't matter.
This is reality. This is the future. This is climate change, but for the work force. The sooner we stop blaming globalization and realize we're going to have to fundamentally reorganize society, the sooner we can start working on solutions. Putting our heads in the sand will not solve the problem. Blaming our foreign neighbors is not going to solve the problem.
What happens to society when 30% of unskilled labor is no longer required? 50%? 80%? 100%?
What happens when skilled labor is no longer required?
Circa 2025 - 2035 is the likely time frame for widespread automation of many jobs.
Neither party is offering an answer at the present that I'm currently aware of. The solution is in the education system for both children and adults.
There are 5.6 million or so skilled trade jobs that need fulfillment right now, a sizable chunk of any of the BLS's unemployment categories in and of itself. More are going to be necessary in the near future to build all of that automation infrastructure, not accounting for the technical skill sets that will be necessary to maintain them.
Mike Rowe testified before Congress 28th February 2017. Note that he previously testified twice before Congress in 2011 and again in 2013. In a scant few years the necessity for skilled tradespeople has roughly doubled in ~5 years ...
|
|
I'm not convinced the american people are willing to accept self driving cars enough for them to really take off, which they'll need to do in order to actually be safer. Kind of a herd immunity thing.
A: I've heard an argument that people will want to keep 'the thrill of control' or somesuch... and yet it is very common for people who can afford it to have personal drivers. There is a lot to be said for convenience. Given the option to get in the car and work, play, or take a nap I believe the vast majority will want to do so. Not to mention the cost benefits. Many people living in cities already find it cheaper to not own a car... automated driving would extend that to the suburbs.
B: Every self driving car on the road is a car whose 'driver' cannot get distracted and has vastly better 'vision', driving skill, and reaction time than any human. Thus, there is no need of a certain level of adoption to start seeing safety improvements. There IS an additional 'herd immunity' factor once you get to the point that most cars are self driving and they can communicate with each other to further increase safety and efficiency... but automated driving on its own is significantly safer long before you get to that level of adoption.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys. GUYS
HEY YOU GUYYYYYYYYS
I'm not convinced the american people are willing to accept self driving cars enough for them to really take off, which they'll need to do in order to actually be safer. Kind of a herd immunity thing.A: I've heard an argument that people will want to keep 'the thrill of control' or somesuch... and yet it is very common for people who can afford it to have personal drivers. There is a lot to be said for convenience. Given the option to get in the car and work, play, or take a nap I believe the vast majority will want to do so. Not to mention the cost benefits. Many people living in cities already find it cheaper to not own a car... automated driving would extend that to the suburbs.
B: Every self driving car on the road is a car whose 'driver' cannot get distracted and has vastly better 'vision', driving skill, and reaction time than any human. Thus, there is no need of a certain level of adoption to start seeing safety improvements. There IS an additional 'herd immunity' factor once you get to the point that most cars are self driving and they can communicate with each other to further increase safety and efficiency... but automated driving on its own is significantly safer long before you get to that level of adoption.
2020- 2025 is the earliest probability of such vehicles being close to affordably priced based on articles such as this.