Love the way you present both sides of an argument as objectively as possible; whereas, I am a ham-fisted anti-unionist. BTW, whenever I see a piece of equipment, e.g. combine harvester, I try to guess the “person equivalents” it has replaced.
I get it, especially because unions have been very quick to go to government to get their way, but coercing them away would not be a good thing, either.
Mass immigration, "to do the jobs Americans won't do", has had the same effect on productivity as cheap labor floods the market in lieu of capital investment to automate. We don't need cheap ditch diggers supplanting automation. We've been racing to achieve Third World status as productivity and innovation have been sidelined. As I understand the port issue, however, some countries have adopted the Chinese automation, which Trump is perhaps justifiably concerned about. Wherever the CCP offer to "help" there are unwanted strings attached. That said, our ports should make the Chinese system look obsolete by comparison. Perhaps Trump has a longer game strategy, but I don't see it.
We've got a zillion tech types here in the US that would likely run circles around Chinese automation, if they were set loose on the ports.
As for immigration, I'm in favor of a lot of it, for reasons I've written about here time and again. It should go by the Charles Koch notion of "anyone who would make the country better and no one who would not." Restricting it just to prop up domestic wages will do more harm than good.
Can we not consider a more humane way of introducing technology? And, shouldn't we be considering the results if we take away more and more jobs from people. Do we really want to create a permanent underclass?
When has automation created a permanent underclass?
In 1800, 75% of the workforce worked on farms. In 1850, it was 64%. In 1900, it was 40%. Today it's 1.2%.
New jobs emerge as old ones go away, and there's no reason to think that this centuries-long reality will suddenly change.
Government, not progress, is the source of the permanent underclass. Decades of "helpful" welfare programs have trapped people in their poverty and stand as barriers to upward economic mobility. I've witnessed, firsthand, more times than I can count, the pernicious effect of the welfare trap.
What would you do that would be more "humane?" I already suggested generous buyouts. Would you prefer they go on the dole for the rest of their lives?
I am far less sanguine than you that new jobs will emerge to replace those lost to automation and especially AI. I think that computers represent a historical divergence and so we can't rely upon what happened in the past.
Sounds easy to say "retrench" to a guy within 5 years of retirement. Who is going to hire and "retrench" that 60-year-old? Gotta be a happy medium somewhere, but don't see it here.
It's not easy. But, the longer progress is impeded, the harder the fall when the change inevitably arrives. A company going bankrupt and all its employees out on the street with no severance or separation package is more damaging than buying people out as things evolve.
I too am rewatching The Wire! I happen to be on the 4th episode of Season 2. I believe that automation is inevitable. Companies care about cost savings first. It always comes down to the money. Ideally, workers will find other jobs that are different but use the same skill set. If unions were really supportive of workers they would be working to do that instead of trying to lobby for a dead end.
Love the way you present both sides of an argument as objectively as possible; whereas, I am a ham-fisted anti-unionist. BTW, whenever I see a piece of equipment, e.g. combine harvester, I try to guess the “person equivalents” it has replaced.
I get it, especially because unions have been very quick to go to government to get their way, but coercing them away would not be a good thing, either.
Again, your well-balanced perspective …
Mass immigration, "to do the jobs Americans won't do", has had the same effect on productivity as cheap labor floods the market in lieu of capital investment to automate. We don't need cheap ditch diggers supplanting automation. We've been racing to achieve Third World status as productivity and innovation have been sidelined. As I understand the port issue, however, some countries have adopted the Chinese automation, which Trump is perhaps justifiably concerned about. Wherever the CCP offer to "help" there are unwanted strings attached. That said, our ports should make the Chinese system look obsolete by comparison. Perhaps Trump has a longer game strategy, but I don't see it.
We've got a zillion tech types here in the US that would likely run circles around Chinese automation, if they were set loose on the ports.
As for immigration, I'm in favor of a lot of it, for reasons I've written about here time and again. It should go by the Charles Koch notion of "anyone who would make the country better and no one who would not." Restricting it just to prop up domestic wages will do more harm than good.
Who do you think is more concerned about losing their jobs, the longshoremen or people work at the union?
Both, but indeed, the union office people live in existential fear that their easy desk jobs willl evaporate.
Can we not consider a more humane way of introducing technology? And, shouldn't we be considering the results if we take away more and more jobs from people. Do we really want to create a permanent underclass?
When has automation created a permanent underclass?
In 1800, 75% of the workforce worked on farms. In 1850, it was 64%. In 1900, it was 40%. Today it's 1.2%.
New jobs emerge as old ones go away, and there's no reason to think that this centuries-long reality will suddenly change.
Government, not progress, is the source of the permanent underclass. Decades of "helpful" welfare programs have trapped people in their poverty and stand as barriers to upward economic mobility. I've witnessed, firsthand, more times than I can count, the pernicious effect of the welfare trap.
What would you do that would be more "humane?" I already suggested generous buyouts. Would you prefer they go on the dole for the rest of their lives?
I am far less sanguine than you that new jobs will emerge to replace those lost to automation and especially AI. I think that computers represent a historical divergence and so we can't rely upon what happened in the past.
Sounds easy to say "retrench" to a guy within 5 years of retirement. Who is going to hire and "retrench" that 60-year-old? Gotta be a happy medium somewhere, but don't see it here.
It's not easy. But, the longer progress is impeded, the harder the fall when the change inevitably arrives. A company going bankrupt and all its employees out on the street with no severance or separation package is more damaging than buying people out as things evolve.
I too am rewatching The Wire! I happen to be on the 4th episode of Season 2. I believe that automation is inevitable. Companies care about cost savings first. It always comes down to the money. Ideally, workers will find other jobs that are different but use the same skill set. If unions were really supportive of workers they would be working to do that instead of trying to lobby for a dead end.
Companies *have* to care about cost savings. If they don't, their competitors surely will, and they will decline and fail.