[KaiserJeep]

I briefly flirted with the Fast Crash in 2013-2014, mainly because I was introduced to Peak Oil by Michael Ruppert's film Collapse. But I have since come around to Kunstler's Long Emergency scenario.

As with the 6th Great Extinction and the Oil Peak, the obsolescence of the Middle Class began decades ago - I would say the 1960's - and has slowly been growing, as a ball of wet snow grows as it rolls downhill. Whether or not it breaks and stops, or grows into an avalanche, is a function of the theory of chaos, seemingly random, but understandable in retrospect. It is also difficult to separate the effects of the end of cheap FF's, from overpopulation, from accelerating environmental extinctions, from the obsolescence of the Middle Class. These problems are seemingly randomly reinforcing and diminishing one another, in a difficult to understand - perhaps impossible to understand - pattern.

Perhaps Ibon has it right, we can only surrender to chaos, and live each day according to the dictates of our own conscience, each in our own way.

This has been a rewarding thread, if not a happy one. I want to thank all who participated, but now the smell of a roasting 20-lb turkey is distracting me. Everybody enjoy the feast.

[Ibon]

A recent article that addresses the theme of this thread


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... rk/395294/

For many centuries, people created technologies that made the horse more productive and more valuable—like plows for agriculture and swords for battle. One might have assumed that the continuing advance of complementary technologies would make the animal ever more essential to farming and fighting, historically perhaps the two most consequential human activities. Instead came inventions that made the horse obsolete—the tractor, the car, and the tank. After tractors rolled onto American farms in the early 20th century, the population of horses and mules began to decline steeply, falling nearly 50 percent by the 1930s and 90 percent by the 1950s.

Regarding humans becoming obsolete, the above paragraph struck me. Why shouldn't we follow the same trajectory like the horse? This obsolescence might be the solution rather than a problem if like the horse we can eliminate 90% of humans within 60 years. This would have a huge beneficial impact on peak oil, climate change, biodiversity loss.

Maybe obsolescence through technology is our ultimate savior..... a new twist on being a technophile.

The article does attempt to address what comes next. Some good perspectives here.

[Newfie]

Drove up from Georiga to PA, listening to NPR, news story and "analysis" about the Carrier deal. As usual I found myself screaming at the radio due to the twit interviewer.

So supposedly loosing jobs over seas isn't the big deal, it's automation. 20. ( or so ) years ago it took 20 men to do X amount of factory work. Today it takes 6.5.

The talking points were
A) there are not enough trained workers to take these jobs
B) the displaced workers can't adapt

A) didn't we just have an Occupy Wall Street movement where a whole bunch of college educated folks were protesting they couldn't find jobs? Well here are apparently thousands of jobs where we need educated workers. It would seem that the educated folks are being educated in stuff that won't earn a paycheck. Why don't they smart kids train for jobs? What is the disconnect? Is it one of prestige? I'm gonna get an English degree because learning how to program a PLC is below me?

B) blaming this on the displaced workers is hog wash. We are now producing more with fewer workers. If we trained the excess workers they still would not have a job, there are far too many excess workers. The only way (by the Sri k logic) to empty these excess workers is by producing more stuff. But that would mean something like 400% more stuff than now. That's not good for the environment so clearly the answer is that those workers are redundant, not needed as producers. But what do we then do with these redundant people?

C). Think about truck drivers and self driving trucks. These trucks will make most long haul drivers redundant. The $50,000/ year driver will lose their jobs and end up getting welfare for $20,000/year. Where does that $30,000savings go? Into the shoppers pocket?

Why not just not give up on self driving trucks. Keep the drivers. Let's not make a problem that Does not yet exist.

[Ibon]

Why not just not give up on self driving trucks. Keep the drivers. Let's not make a problem that Does not yet exist.

Luddite lol.

[Newfie]

It does seem the simpler solution.

Is technology the universal solution? I think not.

So Luddite it is at least for some things.

[KaiserJeep]

Think about truck drivers and self driving trucks. These trucks will make most long haul drivers redundant. The $50,000/ year driver will lose their jobs and end up getting welfare for $20,000/year. Where does that $30,000savings go? Into the shoppers pocket?

Why not just not give up on self driving trucks. Keep the drivers. Let's not make a problem that Does not yet exist.

You cannot unring a bell. Understand that even professional truck drivers make mistakes, if fewer than amateurs. There is a certain - and in fact chillingly high - death rate associated with highway travel. It is one of the leading causes of death in the USA, about 40,000 per year.

If cyber drivers reduced that death rate to an average of 35,000, that would be a reason to automate driving - saving 5,000 annually.

I don't think you understand the basic point here. Human labor is being obsoleted at a rapid rate. Most people will live their entire lives and never work. The middle class, mostly gone already, will disappear entirely. There will be the elites, the toadies of the elites, and the vermin. Those are the only classes of people remaining. Yours was the last generation to have a middle class lifestyle. You are in denial of the facts - get over it.

[Newfie]

KJ,
I've been talking about this issue for several years in one thread or another. We agree on the problem well enough. My comments have focused on the human impact of these changes.

Search the forum for references to Bertrand Russell's "In Praise of Ideness."

But it's all a temporary problem.

[KaiserJeep]

Yes but you can't ignore basic economics. Increases in the Minimum Wage clearly cause restaurants to choose automated alternatives to doormen, dishwashers, and other low skilled employees. In Silly Valley, increases in expected annual salaries did in fact cause a huge influx of work permits from India and like places. Then even the green card workers were displaced by software, as I described in an earlier message in this thread.

Human labor is rapidly going obsolete and the consequences of eliminating the middle class are at least as great as the Industrial Revolution that created them. In the end, this may matter more to the next few generations of humans than does the end of oil.

Because the vermin class does not need food, water, or energy when these things are in short supply. With 8+ billion humans on Earth, human life will be near valueless.

[Newfie]

Right, if human life is valueless why are you worrying about a few trucking accidents?

KJ, you are not responding to my post. That's OK, you have a different perspective. As do I.

[KaiserJeep]

I do not believe that human life is valueless, nor do most people.

Human labor is becoming worthless due to automation. Different topic entirely.

Don't confuse a willingness to discuss a problem with an endorsement of the underlying cause.

This is not something that can be neglected, ignored, or dismissed. The class of people we are both members of is becoming obsolete because of automation. You and I need not care personally because we have our careers behind us. But I at least care about my kids and grandkids, and they cannot ignore this.

[Tanada]

Here is where we disagree Kaiser on a fundamental level. You see ever increasing automation as inevitable. I see it as a deliberate choice encouraged by certain sectors of the governments around the world.

[KaiserJeep]

Here is where we disagree Kaiser on a fundamental level. You see ever increasing automation as inevitable. I see it as a deliberate choice encouraged by certain sectors of the governments around the world.

Would you also ignore economics, Tanada? Automation exists because it is more profitable than human labor when large scale production is required.

There is also the pressing matter of overpopulation. Those in the most desperate need of salaries are in developing nations, and have multiple children. But the system reinforces itself as these folks exist on the cusp of starvation - they are not middle class consumers as are the citizens of developed nations. When most of your income goes for food, even warm clothing, shoes, and a roof to shelter under are secondary considerations. Nor can they afford the education to appreciate the conundrum we have or the luxury to think about anything but raw survival.

The developed nations have consumer demand for all the glitzy manufactured goods and personal services. Who doesn't enjoy power tools, electronic toys, fast cars, luxury vacations, and the like?

Yet the destruction of the Middle Class is also the destruction of the main consumer class. The system is contracting and will do so ever faster as time passes. Meanwhile, those who automate need not pay salaries, just invest in capital equipment. They make each such decision in isolation, even the elites who own all are powerless to stop the economy from contracting.

I see what is happening as just a symptom of the end of cheap energy. Automation reduces human errors, saves energy, requires no commuters, reduces labor costs, increases product quality, and inevitably - reduces the number of humans employed.

Those obsolete humans that we are oversupplied with, that would be. Governments cannot fix this, I believe.

[Tanada]

Exactly my point, profitability is in the eyes of the beholder. If you worship at the feet of the accountants you will always seek to maximize profits with minimized costs based on the ARBITRARY dollar value assigned to those profits and costs.

Here is a thought problem for you. Say you are an accountant and the company that you work for is a long haul trucking freight company. The Government comes along and says we will offer these incentives Y for every robotic driven truck. You look over the figures as the company accountant and you see that the expenses for installing the automatic driver minus the incentives and minus the labor costs of the laid off driver adds to the profitability of the company. You do your job and report this up the chain where the company management says Okay automate the drivers out of work. The transition takes five years as accelerated depreciation of existing trucks is part of the incentive package.

Now take the same company with the same initial conditions. This time imagine the government says, you can automate if you wish but there are no incentives to do so. Now you have the calculation run again and the company can still make a marginal profit improvement by automation so the management still starts the transition to eliminate human drivers, but they do so in a phased in process because the costs are significant. Instead of scrapping their fleet in five years and having all automated delivery in year six they just buy automated replacement vehicles each year and it takes fifteen years to transition. Many of the truck drivers are old enough they retire as they are replaced so the social impact is much less.

Now take a third example. The government says not only will automating your trucks not receive an incentive, every worker you displace by automating gets 1 year of full wages and benefits so they can learn a new trade and if their new career pays less than their current career your company is required to deposit the difference in their 'social costs' with the government. Meaning they make $50,000 working for you and $35,000 in their new career so your company has to pay the difference in their Medicare, medicaid, SSI and income tax to the different levels of government that are losing that income for your profit as a company. The accountants take one look at the figures and tell management that automation of the driving fleet is far more costly to the company than just keeping the human drivers working.

Automation is not just a blow to the working stiffs who lose their jobs, it is a significant drag on government coffers on all levels. The fewer workers there are the less income to the local, state and federal government from payroll deductions as the tip of the iceberg. Then when you look at all the support jobs that those truck drivers need in rest stops, and all the spending they do that supports the economy based on their income level it all adds up to a massive amount of money taken out of the system for every job automated away.

Why should the government encourage the reduction of their own income through perverse incentives for automation? They are hurting themselves every step of the way. By privatizing profits and socializing costs the companies that automate are greatly rewarded and the government loses massively.

[Pops]

Someone dreamed a machine
that made better stockings than Ned

Now we all wonder when
the machines will begin to dream


lol.

[Newfie]

KJ,
You are arguing economics, remember supply and demand?
We have a huge supply of humans and a falling demand for their services.
Economically humans have very low value.

[KaiserJeep]

Newfie, are you feeling Ill or distracted this morning? You seem off your game, simply repeating the obvious. It's a noticeable difference from your normal considered and deliberate approach.

Tanada, are you under the impression that somebody is in charge of the Economy? That used to be true in the USSR or Cuba, to name a couple of places. It never has been true anywhere where Capitalism exists, because Chaos Theory holds sway in those places.

As comforting as it is to believe so, there is nobody in charge of a Capitalist economy, never has been, and never will be. There is no master plan, almost everything that a government does amounts to positive feedback, causing our Economic system to oscillate from one extreme to the other, accelerating and increasing the peaks, and deepening the doldrums.

Both of you: I understand that human obsolescence is a real downer of an idea. Both of you need to move beyond the Denial phase and towards Acceptance of the idea, because we are hundreds of years into the Industrial Revolution, with nobody in charge.

[careinke]

I'm throwing my hat in with KJ on this one. Automation on all levels is coming much faster than, and covers many more jobs, than most of us expect. Let's face it, robots don't get sick, always show up, get no overtime, are not taxed (SS, work mans comp, etc), and are generally a lot less of a pain in the ass compared to a human.

Besides the obvious job losses like truck drivers, warehouse workers, food service workers, and large commercial ag workers, will be replaced or severely cut back. Para legals, anesthesiologists, pilots, GP doctors, surgeons, librarians, car mechanics, shipping, accountants, traffic cops, and many, many, others are all subject to automation.

Fortunately, this will sped up the global economic crash.

[Tanada]

I'm throwing my hat in with KJ on this one. Automation on all levels is coming much faster than, and covers many more jobs, than most of us expect. Let's face it, robots don't get sick, always show up, get no overtime, are not taxed (SS, work mans comp, etc), and are generally a lot less of a pain in the ass compared to a human.

Besides the obvious job losses like truck drivers, warehouse workers, food service workers, and large commercial ag workers, will be replaced or severely cut back. Para legals, anesthesiologists, pilots, GP doctors, surgeons, librarians, car mechanics, shipping, accountants, traffic cops, and many, many, others are all subject to automation.

Fortunately, this will sped up the global economic crash.

My point is, if the Government regulations change in such a way that Automation is taxed at a significant rate the balance of the equation changes. I am puzzled so many intelligent people can not seem to grasp the fact that today automation is not only cheaper because there is no labor tax on it, but also rewarded by the government with a slew of tax incentives. President Obama famously said back in 2008 that people could build coal burning electric plants if they wanted too while he was President but that if they did he would make sure they went bankrupt in the process. As a result NOBODY tried building coal power plants for the last 9 years because the risks were too high and the rewards too low.
https://youtu.be/4aTf5gjvNvo

It does not need to be a public statement to work either, high government officials can quietly notify businesses of the change in the regulatory process before it ever gets written into law so that they are not caught off guard when the change actually gets enacted.

[Pops]

My point is, if the Government regulations change in such a way that Automation is taxed at a significant rate the balance of the equation changes.

You make good points T, but if you think government run by corporations and billionaires is going down that road you are way off.
Twitter tells me we now have a "populist" administration elected by hard working people, lol. The new labor secty is a fast food mogul who has a fond place in his heart for robots and no love lost on labor, who seems to believe that the government's job is to "give advice to employers" rather than enforce labor laws.

You can't get where you're heading from here
.

[Newfie]

Just a couple of observations.

Some folks here love the idea of automated cars and delivery trucks.

But elsewhere some folks here are upset Trump wants to appoint as govt official some guy who threatened to automate fast food joints.

Either automation is good or it is bad. Ones opinion should not depend upon who makes the suggestion.

IMHO automation is doing a lot of harm and needs to be seriously considered. This is a very old concern. I've noted before Russels 1933 essay but also recently read Huxleys 1931 Brave New World (I had never gotten around to that before for some reason.). Huxley addresses automation and its dangers to social fabric quite directly (while side stepping the population issue.)

This automation issue is one amongst many we have not dealt with forthrightly as a culture. While I understand the various arguments noted above I remain convienced the greater danger is how it erodes the social fabric. Something which most here seem to not understand or consider important. That troubles me for it seems we have little understanding of how we function as a culture.

In any case it is a temporary situation which exists on the upward slope of progress. When things head South the dynamics will change, quite possibly taking wildly divergent swings. I can see scenarios where automation is embraced because you don't have to feed humans. I can see other scenarios where human labor is desired because it is difficult to make or maintain machines.