You know folks, this discussion has gone WAY past the original questioners intent, but I guess that's good. There's a lot of wisdom floating around out there and it's good to see some of it. Just a few more thoughts from me and I'll say no more on the subject. Look, no-one likes dirty air or dirty water, no-one. But, if you want to live in a modern, industrial society with all the benefits and yes, blessings it has to offer you have to live with a certain level of "schmutz", it's unavoidable. Finding the level you can live with is the trick. The Chinese have found their level, it's air you can cut with a knife, but you know what, they don't care. People are working and they're making money hand over fist. Am I recommending we do the same? Certainly not! What I am saying is the pursuit of perfection can be self- defeating. "The best is the enemy of the good." Perfect doesn't exist, except in the mind of God. And remember one more thing. Businesses exist to make money, not to act as job programs or social improvement agencies. If they can't make money in one location they'll go where they can. Screaming about it won't change the fact, and that's the way it's always been. We've got hard choices to make here.
Do you want to know just how Screwed up an out of Control Govermant Agency can make things in this nation look no Further than CARB and the EPA and the Damage they have done to the OTR Trucking industry. Just 12 years ago Heavy Trucks used to get 7-8 MPG as Fuel Economy going down the road with Engines that would last over a Million Miles before they needed to have a 12,000 Overhaul done to them. Now fast Forward to 2011 the Industry is lucky to get 5 MPG and that is with an APU on the truck I got 7.6 MPG with no APU and Idled my engine for cooling and heat. Engines are lucky to go 500K before they need a 25,000 overhaul and every 250k miles your changing a filter that costs you 3 grand just for the filter and also requires you to use another fluid that runs 12 bucks a gallon and you burn that at the rate of 1 gallon per 5 gallons of Diesel consumed.
So let me figure this out so how is an engine that lasts half as long burns 33% more fuel to go the same distance also I need another 12K motor on my truck to stay cool or warm since CARB thinks less of a Human being than a Dog. Also my expenses are thru the roof yet your telling me that this is better for the Planet.
And sometimes the goofs and the top performers are one and the same. Rarely will a person give 100% all of the time...and smart employers will make allowances for that. Motivation comes and goes... life circumstances often take precedence... and performance therefore tends to vary over the course of one's career.
schlimm In a different forum, there is a lot of heated discussion about unions, government employees, etc. Some folks point out all the examples of union and/or government workers who are goofs or total screw ups. But I still maintain it doesn't matter where you work, there will always be goofs and lazy a***s who get away with it.
In a different forum, there is a lot of heated discussion about unions, government employees, etc. Some folks point out all the examples of union and/or government workers who are goofs or total screw ups. But I still maintain it doesn't matter where you work, there will always be goofs and lazy a***s who get away with it.
Yep - all types of people in all types of jobs.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
zugmann schlimm: Different jobs really do have widely varying skill sets. Even in academia, having a Ph.D. doesn't mean you are remotely qualified. . LoL. You're describing half my professors!!
schlimm: Different jobs really do have widely varying skill sets. Even in academia, having a Ph.D. doesn't mean you are remotely qualified. .
Different jobs really do have widely varying skill sets. Even in academia, having a Ph.D. doesn't mean you are remotely qualified. .
LoL. You're describing half my professors!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Different jobs really do have widely varying skill sets. Even in academia, having a Ph.D. doesn't mean you are remotely qualified. .
Different jobs really do have widely varying skill sets. Even in academia, having a Ph.D. doesn't mean you are remotely qualified. I remember being on an interview committee for an applicant. The more he talked (especially after a few beers - the old brewski test) the deeper he dug himself into weirdworld.
schlimm zugmann: Still need skills. Being able to sell people stuff is a skill many do not have. I think that skills and education are two different areas... even if a job is for "unskilled" people -- there are still skills needed. I agree. Without getting politically incorrect, I think we all know people who can do a great job at things that require physical strength/skills and fortitude, but who lack the cognitive skills to pursue higher ed and lack the people skills to be effective in sales or customer service. Most of the jobs they used to do are gone, never to return. What about them? Or are we going to have a permanent underclass of the never/hardly ever employed? Wait, we already do.
zugmann: Still need skills. Being able to sell people stuff is a skill many do not have. I think that skills and education are two different areas... even if a job is for "unskilled" people -- there are still skills needed.
Still need skills. Being able to sell people stuff is a skill many do not have.
I think that skills and education are two different areas... even if a job is for "unskilled" people -- there are still skills needed.
I agree. Without getting politically incorrect, I think we all know people who can do a great job at things that require physical strength/skills and fortitude, but who lack the cognitive skills to pursue higher ed and lack the people skills to be effective in sales or customer service. Most of the jobs they used to do are gone, never to return. What about them? Or are we going to have a permanent underclass of the never/hardly ever employed? Wait, we already do.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
(Dusty) "Roads" in your case!
I've met smart people that never finished high school. I've also met people with multiple degrees that I wouldn't trust to baby sit a goldfish.
Too much emphasis on education...which is nothing but a business anymore. I have a degree, and I think we can all agree I'm no Rhodes Scholar. Or is that Rhoads?
zugmann Still need skills. Being able to sell people stuff is a skill many do not have. I think that skills and education are two different areas... even if a job is for "unskilled" people -- there are still skills needed.
Yes..depends on the business, the job, and the degree of responsibility. Commission sales, for example, is one area that employs alot of people..requires limited skills, and offers almost unlimited earnings potential. I will hire a sales person and tell him /her to make 100 phone calls a day...so long as they do that and have a cursory understanding of what they're selling the law of averages will ensure that they make a better than average living...no real skills required. Lots of other jobs out there like that... and becoming that way.. where earnings are good and qualifications are minimal... in freight sales 100 calls a day pretty much ensures success, a HS diploma is not required.
Murphy Siding Will the anticipated higher fuel costs have any noticeable effects on the origins of products most Americans purchase?
Will the anticipated higher fuel costs have any noticeable effects on the origins of products most Americans purchase?
It will be interesting to see if the oversea transportation segment is willing to give any , to try and maintain the status quo.
If you look at all the costs avoided by producing overseas (labor, benefits, taxes, enviro,) the fuel segment is but a part of the total equation.
Ulrich Don't worry..most employers don't WANT skilled labor or an educated workforce. As much as possible we try to dumb down every job so that an unskilled or semi skilled person can do it. That's easier accomplished in some industries than in others..i..e. if you own a window cleaning business its easy...if you own an engineering firm then not so much. Let''s say you're a typical employer with 20 people on your payroll. Would you rather have 20 highly skilled craftsmen or 20 unskilled workers? Unless you enjoy having your workers run your business for you and you enjoy trying to find hard to replace skilled workers, the answer is you want an unskilled workforce. A totally automated workplace isn't likely to happen for a long time..ie. where trucks, trains, and planes run themselves, so that's good news... workers who don't have college degrees or 4 year apprenticeships in a trade will remain in demand for some time into the future.
Don't worry..most employers don't WANT skilled labor or an educated workforce. As much as possible we try to dumb down every job so that an unskilled or semi skilled person can do it. That's easier accomplished in some industries than in others..i..e. if you own a window cleaning business its easy...if you own an engineering firm then not so much.
Let''s say you're a typical employer with 20 people on your payroll. Would you rather have 20 highly skilled craftsmen or 20 unskilled workers? Unless you enjoy having your workers run your business for you and you enjoy trying to find hard to replace skilled workers, the answer is you want an unskilled workforce. A totally automated workplace isn't likely to happen for a long time..ie. where trucks, trains, and planes run themselves, so that's good news... workers who don't have college degrees or 4 year apprenticeships in a trade will remain in demand for some time into the future.
I guess it depends on the type of business. Though I want employees that I don't have to babysit, and that won't cause me to be fined $45,000,000 by various gov't agencies.
oltmannd If you automate 80% of everyone's job, then we only have to work one day a week to earn a whole week's pay. Same total economic output with only 20% of the effort.
If you automate 80% of everyone's job, then we only have to work one day a week to earn a whole week's pay. Same total economic output with only 20% of the effort.
Won't work that way. What will happen is that (in your example) they will lay off 80% of the work force, convert all remaining positions except a handful to non-benefit accruing part time positions, and the stockholders will pocket the margin
Convicted One But hey, as long as the Walmart stockholders are happy, we're supposed to be happy too , right?
But hey, as long as the Walmart stockholders are happy, we're supposed to be happy too , right?
As long as we can fill our carts with cheap crap we don't need...
Although I don't think the walmart stockholders are too happy... seems they are too expensive any more.
The "education" pot of gold. That's the answer to everything anymore. A 4-yr college degree doesn't even have the weight it once did. Now you need a master's.. doctorate.. multiple degrees (oh yeah, and experience somewhere).
We also have lots of people that could better contribute more to society if they were in another line of work. We all know people that we when we see them we wonder: "why are they wasting their talent here?" But "here" is where they have a paycheck and health insurance for their families. Yeah, we like to think of breaking free to get an education and a new career - but most responsible people just can't fathom doing that.
Sure, if you are unemployed - you don't have much to lose, but if you are employed - you risk it all.
I speak from personal experience. I had another employee tell me once "Tom, the best thing that could happen to you is that you get FIRED. Then you'd be forced to do something with your life."
He has a point.
Ulrich zugmann: Yep, we just have to settle for the standard of living that places like China have. Oh boy, sign me up. Besides, if we don't employ any Americans, then who is going to be able buy the crap made in China? But I guess that kind of long term thinking is too complicated for the lazy bums that just want to maximize their greed today. That's correct. Globalization is a convenient means by which we can sidestep labor and envirnomental laws by allowing one to employ cheap labor elsewhere in countries that have no environmental regulations. And since that happens "far away" we can remain smug in our belief that it isn't really happening at all.
zugmann: Yep, we just have to settle for the standard of living that places like China have. Oh boy, sign me up. Besides, if we don't employ any Americans, then who is going to be able buy the crap made in China? But I guess that kind of long term thinking is too complicated for the lazy bums that just want to maximize their greed today.
Yep, we just have to settle for the standard of living that places like China have.
Oh boy, sign me up. Besides, if we don't employ any Americans, then who is going to be able buy the crap made in China? But I guess that kind of long term thinking is too complicated for the lazy bums that just want to maximize their greed today.
That's correct. Globalization is a convenient means by which we can sidestep labor and envirnomental laws by allowing one to employ cheap labor elsewhere in countries that have no environmental regulations. And since that happens "far away" we can remain smug in our belief that it isn't really happening at all.
And training for other jobs, requiring a college or technical degree just isn't the answer for everybody. We (as a nation) have lost a lot of jobs that used to provide a living for many folks. Not everybody can be a computer whiz, etc. and a lot of those jobs have been off-shored to India, etc. And some folk's talents are with their hands and have a difficult time in the classroom. Just what are we doing for them?
oltmannd zugmann: Is there ever a point where we cross the line and over-automate? It's a really simple economic evaluation. When the cost to own and operate the machine < the cost to hire manual labor, you automate, if not you don't. Do you own a powered lawn mower? Why?
zugmann: Is there ever a point where we cross the line and over-automate?
Is there ever a point where we cross the line and over-automate?
It's a really simple economic evaluation. When the cost to own and operate the machine < the cost to hire manual labor, you automate, if not you don't.
Do you own a powered lawn mower? Why?
I have a powered lawn mower. I also have an unpowered, reel type lawn mower tucked away in the shed. Neither are self-propelled or self-navigating. They both require an operator to function. When I upgraded to the powered version, I didn't permanently displace anyone. I'm not even sure that it cut (no pun intended) the time to mow the lawn by that much, but that may be due to the operator, too.
There's an excellent Twilight Zone episode about automating factories. I don't remember the title. The short of it was the guy who pushed for automation thought it great, until his job was also eliminated. I guess that's what it comes down to. If you work, as do most of us, in a job that could be automated or outsourced you worry about it. If you work in a job that would be hard to automate or outsource, you don't see the problem with that.
Beware though, just like the guy in the TV episode, there's few jobs that can't be either automated, outsourced, or replaced by cheaper labor.
Jeff
zugmann oltmannd: Good thing. More for us. then. If you automate 80% of everyone's job, then we only have to work one day a week to earn a whole week's pay. Same total economic output with only 20% of the effort. (It's how we got from the 6x12 work week to the 5x8 work week) Or, if you automate 80% of everyone's job and everyone works 5 days a week, then the economic output grows X5 and we all can have five times the stuff we have now. That's if you are one of the lucky few to have a job.... and you assume that the workers will actually reap some benefits. Your numbers look great in economic text books - but you forget about variable "g". Greed.
oltmannd: Good thing. More for us. then. If you automate 80% of everyone's job, then we only have to work one day a week to earn a whole week's pay. Same total economic output with only 20% of the effort. (It's how we got from the 6x12 work week to the 5x8 work week) Or, if you automate 80% of everyone's job and everyone works 5 days a week, then the economic output grows X5 and we all can have five times the stuff we have now.
Good thing. More for us. then.
If you automate 80% of everyone's job, then we only have to work one day a week to earn a whole week's pay. Same total economic output with only 20% of the effort. (It's how we got from the 6x12 work week to the 5x8 work week)
Or, if you automate 80% of everyone's job and everyone works 5 days a week, then the economic output grows X5 and we all can have five times the stuff we have now.
That's if you are one of the lucky few to have a job.... and you assume that the workers will actually reap some benefits. Your numbers look great in economic text books - but you forget about variable "g".
Greed.
Once again zug, I agree with you. Based on history, why would anyone believe that if even only 50% of the work were automated, all the workers would still get the same pay as before? Probably 50% would lose their jobs or else the company would demand give-backs to "save" those jobs.
Ulrich You're assuming there's only a limited amount of work to done...more automation will free up people to work in other areas that cannot be automated...This will require a more educated work force as jobs that cannot be automated easily require something robots can't do well..the ability to think.
You're assuming there's only a limited amount of work to done...more automation will free up people to work in other areas that cannot be automated...This will require a more educated work force as jobs that cannot be automated easily require something robots can't do well..the ability to think.
So where are these other areas now? Lots of people are free now. I just don't see the huge increase of jobs - maybe I'm loking in the wrong spots?
And education - yeah, who is going to pay for that?
You're assuming there's only a limited amount of work to be done...more automation will free up people to work in other areas that cannot be automated...This will require a more educated work force as jobs that cannot be automated easily require something robots can't do well..the ability to think. That may not be such a bad thing as few of us aspire to work in boring repetitive jobs anyway.
If only everything was that simple...
oltmannd zugmann: But robots don't buy cars... Good thing. More for us. then. If you automate 80% of everyone's job, then we only have to work one day a week to earn a whole week's pay. Same total economic output with only 20% of the effort. (It's how we got from the 6x12 work week to the 5x8 work week) Or, if you automate 80% of everyone's job and everyone works 5 days a week, then the economic output grows X5 and we all can have five times the stuff we have now.
zugmann: But robots don't buy cars...
But robots don't buy cars...
Let's just stop employing people.. I bet it will be all roses and sunshine. And maybe rainbows will shoot out my ahh... I'll stop now.
Sorry sir, but I am a realist. Or pessimist - same thing.
zugmann Is there ever a point where we cross the line and over-automate?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
zugmann But robots don't buy cars...
Victrola1 Captain Kirk's replicator is not yet reality. Like Captain Kirk called the Enterprise, we now call home on a cell phone. Watch old newsreels of flight control surfaces (fins) being fitted on the assembly line to new DeSotos. An army of men repeat their tasks like piston rods. Watch a video of an auto assembly line online. Your streaming video shows a line of robots repeating their tasks like piston rods. Like agriculture before it, manufacturing is taking less labor per unit produced. As automation advances, labor could become such a small part of price that it is largely decoupled from the cost of production. Assuming labor leaves the equation, what happens to the location of production and in turn the demand for transportation?
Captain Kirk's replicator is not yet reality. Like Captain Kirk called the Enterprise, we now call home on a cell phone.
Watch old newsreels of flight control surfaces (fins) being fitted on the assembly line to new DeSotos. An army of men repeat their tasks like piston rods. Watch a video of an auto assembly line online. Your streaming video shows a line of robots repeating their tasks like piston rods.
Like agriculture before it, manufacturing is taking less labor per unit produced.
As automation advances, labor could become such a small part of price that it is largely decoupled from the cost of production. Assuming labor leaves the equation, what happens to the location of production and in turn the demand for transportation?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.