There is a difference between jobs eliminated by progress -- jobs that, through no fault of the workers, have outlived their usefulness -- and jobs eliminated by government fiat, out of political ideas mistaken or not.
The one happens because of the market, the other by artificial means that may or may not serve the market.
Don't tell me that coal and true automobiles will disappear because of market forces. This will happen through government intervention -- to the detriment of our freedom and pocketbooks.
dakotafred There is a difference between jobs eliminated by progress -- jobs that, through no fault of the workers, have outlived their usefulness -- and jobs eliminated by government fiat, out of political ideas mistaken or not. The one happens because of the market, the other by artificial means that may or may not serve the market. Don't tell me that coal and true automobiles will disappear because of market forces. This will happen through government intervention -- to the detriment of our freedom and pocketbooks.
Sounds like a view is a politically/ideologically driven view that in a materialistic world the Market is always right. It is as if the Market was imbued omniscience, omnipotence and infallibility. The Market can do no wrong.
But behind the mythical Market are businesses, and behind the businesses are people, who are no more omniscient or infallible than the people (may actually be the same people) who elect people to form Government. So still comes down to people making choices and the decision of a business leader in the market place is not inherently any more or less wise than the decision of a government leader. They're both people.
Sometimes government does things right and sometimes not. Sometimes business does things right and sometimes not.
Do Enron and Wells Fargo ring a bell? Not exactly high moments for business and the Market.
The real problem that is at the root of this anxiety over job loss today is the limp economy that we have had since 2008, and the spreading belief that it is the “new normal.” This is not the fault of automation or foreign competition. And the good news is that a bad economy can be fixed by revising policies.
Revising policies is a way of truly stimulating the economy by appealing to human nature. This is opposed to the bogus way of stimulating the economy by showing it a symbol of robust spending as though the economy is an animal that can be tricked into action. That kind of “stimulus” is what is often done by governments. The stimulus that actually works is for governments to change policies.
Change in policy would revive the economy so it had a growth rate that supports the present population growth. A wise change in policy would also reduce or reverse job loss to foreign competition if it is able to reduce the cost of domestic protection.
The supposed crisis of job loss due to automation is an imagined problem that is unlikely to materialize. In my opinion, this imaginary crisis is serving as a pretext to expand government by ramping up safety net programs. It is also just a natural part of the marketing hype for modernity. If we ever really are faced with the question of what to do with two-million displaced truck drivers, we will do what we always do. That is to tell them to get another job.
What limp economy? Things have been rolling along quite nicely since 2010. Cheap housing.. record low interest rates...an uptick in manufacturing..cheap energy. Stocks have done very well. I don't see anything limp unless you're out of work.
Stocks have been doing well in the U.S. due to the Fed quantitative easing pouring the money into the stock market. Low interest rates are a result of low demand for borrowing money, largely due to a perceived higher degree of risk for business investment. In other words, low rates is a reflection of a bad economy, in that the bad economy discourages borrowing because people are afraid to go into debt. Low interest rates are not a reflection of a robust economy providing an opportunity of low interest rates
It is somewhat the same with the price of gasoline reflecting a low demand because people don't want to spend money in a slow and risky economy. However, my gas and electric have been rising continulow continously. There has never been a reduction in those rates.
Jobs are relatively scarce. I monitor the manufacturing sector, and it is slower today than any time in the last 25 years. The U.S. GDP is bumping along at 1-2% average annual growth. We need 5% growth to keep up with the population. Wages in the manufacturing design and engineering fields are about what they were in the early 1990s. Jobs in those fields are very rare compared to even as recently as the summer of 2012.
Ah, another Political debate that has little to do with railroads..Just what we all have come to know and love about the General Discussion forum..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
carnej1 Ah, another Political debate that has little to do with railroads..Just what we all have come to know and love about the General Discussion forum..
Complete with ad hoc experts on railroads, the markets and the economy.
Norm
The unemployed can all become TSA workers. See Congress Wants TSA to Secure Amtrak, Buses.
Between TSA workers and day traders, I think we've got this solved..
I see the potential for driverless automation of the following types of vehicles and equipment. I conclude that there are various pros and cons with such automation. With the way these tradeoffs work, I don’t see self-driving beginning with any of these applications for at least fifty years. The greatest labor saving relative to vehicle capital investment is with trucks and commercial vehicles. Yet they are where the greatest complexity of automation lies, and that offsets the labor saving.
With ships and trains, there is substantial labor savings, but the investment cost of the train or ship is so high that the labor cost is relatively much less significant than it is for a truck.
Considering the high complexity of automating the roads and highways, it may be cheaper to just rebuild them to be physically more accommodating to driverless vehicles, thereby reducing the complexity of all the systems needed for control or safety. At the same time, the rebuild could create separate accommodations for self-driving and operator driven vehicles, thereby eliminating the control issues arising from mixing the two types of driving modes.
VARIABLE PROS AND CONS:
A = Complexity due to variables
B = Savings of labor cost relative to capital investment for vehicle
C = Improvement of safety
D = Reduction of safety
TYPES OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT WITH VARIABLES QUANTIFIED:
Private passenger automobiles
A = very high
B = zero (except indirectly by allowing other work to be done)
C = very high
D = somewhat
Commercial passenger vehicles
B = very high
Truck vehicles
Trains
A = moderately to very high
B = low to moderate
C = low
D = low
Deep water ships
A = moderate to very high
B = low
C = low to moderate
Road construction and mining equipment
A = moderate to high
B = high
D = low to moderate
Agricultural field equipment
B = moderate to high
C = moderate
I have to keep repeating a refrain that nobody on this thread seems to notice ---- and thus lack realism.
Driverless airplanes are with us, even, today, takeoff and landing! But all still require a pilot, and for commercial aircraft, a pilot and copilot. And they have to "drive" on occasion to keep their skills up to put them to use in emergencies.
Driverless trains are with us. Most heavy rail modern rapid transit systems are such or going in that direction. But all still use operators, one to each train. Ditto heavy freight railroads, usually one-comodity, mining or other industry owned.
Why are you assuming driverless cars, driverless buses, driverless trucks, will really be driverless? Any different than driverless trains and airplanes? I think any government road authority would be absolutelyl crazy, out-of-their minds, to consider such a thing.
Even 50 years from now.
I don't really dissagree with you Dave, but there used to be Elevator Operators (Drivers, if you will) and now there are none, yet, there are still elevators... granted, they still require someone to push the button to tell it where to go, but it goes there with no way for anyone to control it.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
El;evators have one vehicle on one track, isolated from the outside environment.
Most, if not all, autonomous (driverless) system operate under very controlled conditions, which is to say there is little or no interface with unpredictable factors - ie, humans.
An airliner may be able to land "automatically," but that does not necessarily take into account that errant Cessna 172 (PSA 182).
Or river currents. I don't know that anyone is proposing replacing towboat pilots with autonomous systems (I could be wrong). A ship in the middle of a large body of water might be able to run without a human hand on the wheel (many solo sailors already do so), but within the confines of the mighty Mississippi, methinks that would be a recipe for disaster.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Even on the ocean, perfectly safe conditions do not exist at all times, externally or internally.
Johnny
By driverless or self-driving, I take that to mean a robotic system that operates the vehicle without any human driver or human observer that can take over the automatic system is there is an issue that requires a human response that the automatic system is incapable of.
The automatic system that I refer to will follow a route program and be able to sense and react to every conceivable contingency that arises along the way. I believe this is what Google has in mind for self-driving cars.
For ocean ships, for instance, a ship following it programed route would have to be capable of sensing and properly reacting to every conceivable weather situation as well as all other vessels.
The self-driver cars are the result of innovation funded by creative private corporations, the essence of the free market. If the demand by the public grows, more will be improved and produced. This is not driven by government fiat (or chevy or VW).
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CJtrainguy dakotafred There is a difference between jobs eliminated by progress -- jobs that, through no fault of the workers, have outlived their usefulness -- and jobs eliminated by government fiat, out of political ideas mistaken or not. The one happens because of the market, the other by artificial means that may or may not serve the market. Don't tell me that coal and true automobiles will disappear because of market forces. This will happen through government intervention -- to the detriment of our freedom and pocketbooks. Sounds like a view is a politically/ideologically driven view that in a materialistic world the Market is always right. It is as if the Market was imbued omniscience, omnipotence and infallibility. The Market can do no wrong. But behind the mythical Market are businesses, and behind the businesses are people, who are no more omniscient or infallible than the people (may actually be the same people) who elect people to form Government. So still comes down to people making choices and the decision of a business leader in the market place is not inherently any more or less wise than the decision of a government leader. They're both people. Sometimes government does things right and sometimes not. Sometimes business does things right and sometimes not. Do Enron and Wells Fargo ring a bell? Not exactly high moments for business and the Market.
You have an odd notion of the market, probably politically/ideologically driven.
Besides business leaders, the U.S. market consists of 300 million customers. When the government intervenes, it not only substitutes its wisdom for theirs but takes away their "vote," if you will.
A perfect example is its outlawing -- Congress's work, this time -- of the incandescent light bulb. The halogen bulb was already out there for those who wanted it. But too many people persisted in choosing "wrong" -- so, no vote for you!
If you think that's an example of the way the market ought to operate, you're living in the wrong country. (Or maybe not. This kind of government behavior looks more and more like the coming thing.)
Actually self-driving cars are being promoted by the government as having the very same objective as the compact fluorescent light. As such, we can expect the manually driven cars to go the way of the 100 watt incandescent light bulb.
dakotafredA perfect example is its outlawing -- Congress's work, this time -- of the incandescent light bulb.
Were never outlawed. Just had to meet newer energy standards. Plenty of exceptions are still allowed.
Granted, CFLs were just a stop-gap and not a great replacement. LED technology quickly caught up and became affordable.
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 dakotafred A perfect example is its outlawing -- Congress's work, this time -- of the incandescent light bulb.
dakotafred A perfect example is its outlawing -- Congress's work, this time -- of the incandescent light bulb.
EuclidThe practical effect is the same.
But the technicalities (and laws) aren't. If they were outlawed, how come they are for sale? Exactly.
zugmann Euclid The practical effect is the same. But the technicalities (and laws) aren't. If they were outlawed, how come they are for sale? Exactly.
Euclid The practical effect is the same.
I am not sure if they are outlawed or what the exact status is. I don't use them. I use some 150 watt incandescents. But I have a lot of T12 fluoescents, and people who sell me the lamps tell me I will soon have to switch to T8 and also replace all the ballasts. But the explanations are never very clear. I will deal with it when it arrives.
zugmann dakotafred A perfect example is its outlawing -- Congress's work, this time -- of the incandescent light bulb. Were never outlawed. Just had to meet newer energy standards. Plenty of exceptions are still allowed.
Oh, yeah? Tell me in what stores you can still find them for ordinary household use. The exceptions are for "party" or designer lights, narrow applications indeed.
The setting of unrealistic standards is effective outlawing, which is what Congress did with the incandescent light bulb. (And Obama is doing with coal.) If this is the way people like you and CJ think a free country ought to be run -- well, we know how you'll be voting in November.
You can use the carrot or the stick to accomplish your goal. Congress could outlaw incandescent lamps or place limitations that made them cost-ineffective. Same result, only took longer. Only in rare cases where CFLs will not work were exceptions made.
The people espousing self-driving cars to self-indulgent consumers aren't winning over everyone. They will have to share the road with actual drivers, just as autos had to share the road with horses. (there was a law [in NY, I think] where car drivers were required to disguise their vehicle if it scared a horse on the same street) Bottom line: is the bottom line. Only if it is affordable for the masses, insurable, maintainable, convenient, and flexible, will it take off. If it comes to pass, Amtrak will lose a big selling point. i.e. arrive relaxed and refreshed.
dakotafredThe setting of unrealistic standards is effective outlawing, which is what Congress did with the incandescent light bulb. (And Obama is doing with coal.) If this is the way people like you and CJ think a free country ought to be run -- well, we know how you'll be voting in November.
It was a republican (President George W. Bush) that signed that energy bill into law, BTW. So how should we vote? Although I do think it is cute how you have to turn every topic into petty politics, Freddy.
dakotafred CJtrainguy dakotafred There is a difference between jobs eliminated by progress -- jobs that, through no fault of the workers, have outlived their usefulness -- and jobs eliminated by government fiat, out of political ideas mistaken or not. The one happens because of the market, the other by artificial means that may or may not serve the market. Don't tell me that coal and true automobiles will disappear because of market forces. This will happen through government intervention -- to the detriment of our freedom and pocketbooks. Sounds like a view is a politically/ideologically driven view that in a materialistic world the Market is always right. It is as if the Market was imbued omniscience, omnipotence and infallibility. The Market can do no wrong. But behind the mythical Market are businesses, and behind the businesses are people, who are no more omniscient or infallible than the people (may actually be the same people) who elect people to form Government. So still comes down to people making choices and the decision of a business leader in the market place is not inherently any more or less wise than the decision of a government leader. They're both people. Sometimes government does things right and sometimes not. Sometimes business does things right and sometimes not. Do Enron and Wells Fargo ring a bell? Not exactly high moments for business and the Market. You have an odd notion of the market, probably politically/ideologically driven. Besides business leaders, the U.S. market consists of 300 million customers. When the government intervenes, it not only substitutes its wisdom for theirs but takes away their "vote," if you will. A perfect example is its outlawing -- Congress's work, this time -- of the incandescent light bulb. The halogen bulb was already out there for those who wanted it. But too many people persisted in choosing "wrong" -- so, no vote for you! If you think that's an example of the way the market ought to operate, you're living in the wrong country. (Or maybe not. This kind of government behavior looks more and more like the coming thing.)
You seem to espouse an extreme ideological version of market economics. The first 80 years of the 20th century taught the lesson that a well-regulated (by the people, through their government) market works best. Since then, we have reverted to more and more of a 19th C robber baron market, with low effective tax rates on a small portion of the people who now control much of the wealth. Result? Structural defects that lead to low growth.
dakotafred zugmann dakotafred A perfect example is its outlawing -- Congress's work, this time -- of the incandescent light bulb. Were never outlawed. Just had to meet newer energy standards. Plenty of exceptions are still allowed. Oh, yeah? Tell me in what stores you can still find them for ordinary household use. The exceptions are for "party" or designer lights, narrow applications indeed.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimm Since then, we have reverted to more and more of a 19th C robber baron market, with low effective tax rates on a small portion of the people who now control much of the wealth. Result? Structural defects that lead to low growth.
Since then, we have reverted to more and more of a 19th C robber baron market, with low effective tax rates on a small portion of the people who now control much of the wealth. Result? Structural defects that lead to low growth.
What do you mean by structural defects, and how do they lead to low growth?
Murphy Siding dakotafred zugmann dakotafred A perfect example is its outlawing -- Congress's work, this time -- of the incandescent light bulb. Were never outlawed. Just had to meet newer energy standards. Plenty of exceptions are still allowed. Oh, yeah? Tell me in what stores you can still find them for ordinary household use. The exceptions are for "party" or designer lights, narrow applications indeed. You can buy them at our local Home Depot. The brand name is Home Luminaire and they are just about worthless. They are guaranteed to last "up to 1000 hours under normal use". If they don't, mail them to their home office on the east coast with your receipt. If they find them to be defective, they will give you a coupon to receive a replacement. Fool me once.....
You can buy them at our local Home Depot. The brand name is Home Luminaire and they are just about worthless. They are guaranteed to last "up to 1000 hours under normal use". If they don't, mail them to their home office on the east coast with your receipt. If they find them to be defective, they will give you a coupon to receive a replacement. Fool me once.....
I use some 150 watt incandescents, and they seemed to only last about 1/8th of their rated life. I began writing the date of installation and date of failure on them, and saved them.
I wrote to GE and told them about it and made the case that they owed my about 45 bulbs as an adjustment for the short life over some time. They said they would look into it and wanted me to send the failed bulbs to them. I had about 25 that I sent them. After several more phone calls and letters over 10 months, they finally told me they could not find any problem, but they sent me the 45 replacement bulbs.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.