# Has America ever been great and why?



## narad (Jan 27, 2017)

Kind of splintering off an off-topic discourse in another thread, and with all this talk of making America great again, I would ask: Has America ever been great? When was that? Why was that?

My own take on this is that WWII left America in a great spot. Because little conflict took place on American soil, and because America really geared up manufacturing to aid in the war effort, American infrastructure was widespread and fresh, featuring many technological advances in mass production that weren't as prevalent elsewhere. 

Meanwhile, foreign infrastructure in developed nations was in shambles, turning would-be-producers into marketplaces for USA-made goods, and leaving little economic competition in the following decades.

Other aspects of the war also helped, for instance the brain drain from scientists fleeing Europe, and even other scientists and technology acquired from defeated nations.

This is all to say that in 1945 America seemed ready to thrive, and while I was not around during that time, I can appreciate a lot of what came out of America in the 50s/60s, in science, technology, culture, education, civil rights, quality of life, etc -- things that you're free to pursue when you're in a great spot economically. But how much of this was due to the often cited causes -- values, freedom, work ethic -- and how much of it was merely right place right time? And is that the era of American greatness?

Naturally if the cause of greatness is largely circumstantial, why are Americans so obsessed with a return to greatness? And what would that even mean in terms of policy?

(My own 2 cents is that it's probably time to admit that guys in India, China, etc., developing nations, are working a hell of a lot harder than Americans. And that information too has become globally accessible so that many people in undeveloped nations are also well-educated, if not formally, so it's also hard to say that Americans work smarter. And on the global field, if you can't work harder or smarter, what can you do really? I would argue it's time to appreciate that America has been in a fortunate position for most of the 20th century, but one should not expect to attain a 1950s general style of life and happiness as the rest of the world comes up to speed / focus on how to best move forward from the present rather than regain something that was lost.)

*I just realized my location may be misleading, so just to throw this out there: I'm American, but have lived internationally for many years.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 27, 2017)

America was pretty great in 1491. 

The work ethic in the USA in 1945 was vastly different than it is now. Workers then lived through the Great Depression and WWII (not that they didn't elsewhere in the world, but, for the reasons you stated, workers in the USA still had jobs to go to), so these workers were ready to work hard to try to make a little progress. There wasn't too much sense of entitlement, and there was a lot of pride taken in workmanship that isn't as prevalent today.

Today, kids who lived through the excess of the late 80's and through most of the 90's are in the workforce. From the standpoint of personal comfort, these young men and women never experienced anything like the Great Depression nor WWII. Furthermore, globalization has kicked America's ass. Why put your own blood, sweat, and tears into a product that can be made in China for 1/10th of the cost, when your boss doesn't really seem to care about the quality of the product?

The USA experiences economic bumps from new inventions. The boom in the automotive industry, the boom in the aerospace industry, the boom in the computer industry, and the boom in the dot com industry all focused, early on, in the USA. China's disregard for intellectual property rights has had some negative effect on innovation. Why spend millions of dollars and 10-12 years developing a product which the Chinese will copy and undercut pricing on within the first four months to market? Working in R&D, I see this on a weekly basis. My team develops a new product, and withing a couple of months of filing the patent, there is one made in China that is the same thing.

So, "Make America great again" is a slogan that might sound great to Americans, but without some further detail about what that means, it's just empty words.


----------



## coreysMonster (Jan 27, 2017)

This idea of "American greatness" has a deep rooting in the American Dream and historical differences between America (a democratic republic since the 1700s) and Europe (made of Kingdoms and Empires till the early 20th century). It was the land where anybody could be anything they wanted, unburdened by aristocratic rule or theological demagoguery. I would say in that regard, America was pretty great for a pretty long time (politically, there was still all that pesky slave business).

But in recent history, patriotism was pushed pretty hard during the Cold War. Economic, scientific, technological successes fueled this fire, for the reasons you mentioned. America had a GDP that was so massively above the rest of the world's that it was easy to push the idea that it was that way because America is so great, and not because everyone else was destroyed by war.

People who want America to become great again seem to want two things: A return to a strong economy of high paid low-skilled labor (never gonna happen) and a sense of safety and security as the economic leader of the world, without having to worry about China or Japan / Germany taking over, which also isn't going to happen (without major conflict at least). 
Then, there's the social reasons: "PC" culture has risen in a globalist world where any man of any skin color or heritage has every right that an Anglo white man does, and can voice his dislike of being called a slur without fear of repurcussion. Whites as a demographic are no longer a solidary group. Church is no longer as important as it used to be. Communities aren't as homogenous. Society is changing, as it always is, and the people who fear change and are confronted with things that society kept away from them in the past (sexual minorities, people with alternate lifestyles, people from different cultures) now feel as if there is societal moral decay with this "surge" of things that they aren't used to - when of course, it's always been there, they just chose to ignore it, and society enabled them to do so.

So in a way, to a lot of people, making America "great" again also means taking all of these different people and shoving them under the rug again. It means taking abortion back to alley ways and shady clinics. It means ostracizing people for being gay or Jewish or for liking sex in a certain way. Making America "great" again means making America "worse" for everybody except the Anglo middle class white man*, so that society won't make him have to confront the idea that other people are different.


*I'm talking your stereotypical, "there goes the neighbourhood" WASP ignorant douche here


----------



## TedEH (Jan 27, 2017)

The whole point, IMO, of using the word "greatness" is that it's meaningless, but sounds good. Since everyone is going to interpret greatness as something different, it allows the slogan to apply to anyone who wants it to apply to them.

It's the very definition of telling people what they want to hear, since everyone is just going to substitute "greatness" for whatever quality they think it great. "Make America great again" basically boils down to "make America [whatever you want it to be]!" It appeals to anyone who has ever said "man, this place is going downhill" or "things aren't what they used to be"- specifically because it requires no context.

Do I think America is great in some ways? Sure I do. But not in a "it used to be great, but it's not anymore, and someone needs to fix that" kind of way.


----------



## vilk (Jan 27, 2017)

Non-white women weren't even allowed to vote until 1965

We can talk about 1945, but it was during that same year that we also rounded up *Americans* and put them in concentration camps for having a Japanese surname.

In the 1970s, Nixon declared "drugs" to be 'public enemy #1', and we began the process of gaining our current status as _highest ratio of prisoners of any nation on Earth_.


The phrase "Make America Great Again" is 100% an appeal _only_ to white men and white traditionalist women.


----------



## coreysMonster (Jan 27, 2017)

TedEH said:


> The whole point, IMO, of using the word "greatness" is that it's meaningless, but sounds good. Since everyone is going to interpret greatness as something different, it allows the slogan to apply to anyone who wants it to apply to them.
> 
> It's the very definition of telling people what they want to hear, since everyone is just going to substitute "greatness" for whatever quality they think it great. "Make America great again" basically boils down to "make America [whatever you want it to be]!" It appeals to anyone who has ever said "man, this place is going downhill" or "things aren't what they used to be"- specifically because it requires no context.
> 
> Do I think America is great in some ways? Sure I do. But not in a "it used to be great, but it's not anymore, and someone needs to fix that" kind of way.


In this vein, it also makes people more easy to control, because it makes the status-quo easily defined as "great", because it's in America. Socialist healthcare? That's not American, so it's not great. State-sponsored tuition? That sounds like socialism, so it's not American, and thus not great. Forget about those other silly countries like Germany, Sweden or Norway, we're America, and America is great! What they do won't work for us because they're not as great as we are.

It's such simple propaganda, but holy Christ it works so well in this country.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jan 27, 2017)

vilk said:


> Non-white women weren't even allowed to vote until 1965
> 
> We can talk about 1945, but it was during that same year that we also rounded up *Americans* and put them in concentration camps for having a Japanese surname.
> 
> ...




I'm sorry, but the entire NOTION of equality for all men (and women) of all races and religions is a uniquely American idea.

You belittle the intellectual and moral advancements of giants.


----------



## vilk (Jan 27, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm sorry, but the entire NOTION of equality for all men (and women) of all races and religions is a uniquely American idea.
> 
> You belittle the intellectual and moral advancements of giants.



It was comparatively greater than most other nations at the time, but the phrase "Make America Great _Again_" juxtaposes it against the present, which is infinitely better than it used to be, all except for the _old bull...._ that we cling to from the past like prohibition and an ignorantly asinine resistance to a proper social health care system.


----------



## coreysMonster (Jan 27, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm sorry, but the entire NOTION of equality for all men (and women) of all races and religions is a uniquely American idea.
> 
> You belittle the intellectual and moral advancements of giants.



Wat. America had slaves and racial segregation way longer than any European country. The idea that "all men are created equal" was at first only meant to abolish Aristocracies, not give _all _men equal rights.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 27, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm sorry, but the entire NOTION of equality for all men (and women) of all races and religions is a uniquely American idea.
> 
> You belittle the intellectual and moral advancements of giants.



Well, sadly, no. Women could vote in New Zealand more than 25 years before they could vote in the USA. The first US election was not much different from the elections of the ancient Greeks, whence the founding fathers took their democratic ideals.

Also:


coreysMonster said:


> Wat. America had slaves and racial segregation way longer than any European country.



For example, in South Africa, all men were allowed to vote in 1850. In the 1870's in the USA, the southern states were still fighting with the federal congress over black suffrage. Even in New York, a state well north of the Mason-Dixon Line, in 1860, a bill to allow blacks the right to vote was voted down.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 27, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm sorry, but the entire NOTION of equality for all men (and women) of all races and religions is a uniquely American idea.
> 
> You belittle the intellectual and moral advancements of giants.



As a Canadian, I think you have no idea what you're talking about. We have a lot of shared culture with America, but I'm pretty sure we're ahead of you on things like this.

Edit: And I'm sure you're going to dig up same random examples of how Canada is terrible in terms of race relations when viewed through the lens of cherry-picked articles and one-off events, but day-to-day, we have a lot less of these kinds of political strains - as far as I can tell.


----------



## odibrom (Jan 27, 2017)

All in all, "Great" is such a subjective adjective that I'm not sure where to does it goes, besides leading to some propaganda kind of speech within the context of the actual president of USA campaign's slogan. Propaganda speech is not a truthful nor trustworthy one. Unfortunately, it is what we all got (we as being a global citizen, for USA politics affect us all).


----------



## bostjan (Jan 27, 2017)

Entertaining fact: Trump trademarked the phrase and threatened to sue anyone else who muttered it in any way that reflected against him. Ronald Reagan used exactly the same slogan in 1980.


----------



## odibrom (Jan 27, 2017)

THAT GIF...


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jan 27, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm sorry, but the entire NOTION of equality for all men (and women) of all races and religions is a uniquely American idea.
> 
> You belittle the intellectual and moral advancements of giants.


A notion you never lived up to. Not worth much then, is it?


----------



## Demiurge (Jan 27, 2017)

I personally believe that greatness is better comprehended as an aspiration than an achievement. Not to sound too Motivational Poster-y about it, but when you try to be great, you have a better chance of doing good, but if you're attitude is, "this thing that happened in the past was great- I'll try to do that again", it's stagnation at best.

In terms of political discourse, it seems that nearly every single, um, _unfortunate_ social event began with some leader spinning a yarn to the people about some BS, idealized version of the past where everything was so much better. Of course, this 'past' was magically accessible again- and only at the mere cost of ceding control to this leader and allowing progress (including the people and institutions allegedly behind it) to be undone to reach that end. And here- it's either history repeating itself or a leader knowing exactly that such are the buttons to press.


----------



## feraledge (Jan 28, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm sorry, but the entire NOTION of equality for all men (and women) of all races and religions is a uniquely American idea.



This is hilarious. A notion is worth nothing if not enacted upon, but egalitarianism is literally in our genetic and biological make up, that's how nomadic hunter-gatherers lived and evolved. The State, its build up and its execution, build in inequality as a necessity to the centralization of power for the distribution of a controlled surplus production. That rights are fought for doesn't give any State the ability to claim the fabrication of the principle, it reflects that the illogical barriers that justify class/gender/sex/religious based hierarchies are incompatible with perceived reality.
And there's nothing egalitarian about American society. It's proof of the chasm between equality of rights (which certainly aren't universal) and equality of access.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Jan 28, 2017)

It's been great enough for people to not want to leave but still bitch and moan about how not great it is.


----------



## feraledge (Jan 28, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> It's been great enough for people to not want to leave but still bitch and moan about how not great it is.



Soundbites are rarely a reflection of reality.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Jan 28, 2017)

Point is, what do you consider great? Greatness to one person is hell for another. As for America, it's been pretty good to me and that's really all I care about.


----------



## Ralyks (Jan 28, 2017)

Well... The 90's were pretty cool....


----------



## budda (Jan 28, 2017)

If you don't have equality, how great is your country?

Our country has a *serious* problem with how it views, converses about, and treats its Indigenous people. Canada has some good things going for it, but the ongoing discrimination towards our Indigenous population since the birth of our country is horrific.

It's not a hot topic for a lot of people though - our PM looks good and they have other issues to discuss.

EDIT: this isn't meant to derail into a conversation about Canada - it's a global question.


----------



## zappatton2 (Jan 28, 2017)

budda said:


> If you don't have equality, how great is your country?
> 
> Our country has a *serious* problem with how it views, converses about, and treats its Indigenous people. Canada has some good things going for it, but the ongoing discrimination towards our Indigenous population since the birth of our country is horrific.
> 
> ...



Can't argue with this.

I think any country that has to declare itself great has frankly stopped trying. Especially on the social justice front.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Jan 28, 2017)

No, but we're getting better in spite of all attempts to stifle progress.


----------



## Mattykoda (Jan 29, 2017)

The title of this thread made me think of the opening scene from the newsroom when he goes off on the blonde chick


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jan 30, 2017)

Mattykoda said:


> The title of this thread made me think of the opening scene from the newsroom when he goes off on the blonde chick




I love this video.

-------------


This is an interesting thread.

One thing I have noticed is people associate greatness with equality. 

But to be great, we cannot be equal...how would we be great if we cannot distinguish ourselves for others.


----------



## bostjan (Jan 30, 2017)

All jokes aside, I think the slogan boils down to the economic state of the 1950's in the USA, which, honestly, looks a little better through nostalgia than it really was:

Unemployment was very low, but unions were very strong.
The class gap was narrowing, yet income taxes on the highest brackets were historically high.
American education was stronger, but government spending on education was relatively high.

Basically, things that were better for the average American, were better because of policies that this administration would never dream of pursuing. Perhaps the correlation between class gap and taxation is incorrect, but, instead, the narrower gap was because of the lack of civil rights for minority, or because of McCarthyism, or because of the subjugation of women.  I mean, it makes no logical sense to think those things correlate, but, we are talking about politics here and not something that people feel needs to make any sense at all.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 30, 2017)

cwhitey2 said:


> One thing I have noticed is people associate greatness with equality.



I'm still sold on the idea that people equate greatness with entirely different things. For a left-leaning person, that very well might be equality, but for someone whose personal values and priorities are different, greatness means an entirely different thing that has nothing to do with everyone being equal.

If we all aspired to the same ideals, we wouldn't be having political discussions like this in the first place.

I still think that too many people believe other people see the world the same way they do. I ended up following a weird trail of vaguely political videos this weekend and observed that in most debates I saw, either person was always talking about something entirely different than what their opponent was saying. Like they were each having a discussion in their own world, directed at the other person, but otherwise detached from them. Neither was entirely wrong, because they were never strictly talking about the same thing. They were so focused on their own point, that it entirely went over their heads that both sides didn't entirely contradict the other on all points. The argument was rarely about which side was right or better, but about which part of the issue was the focus.

In other words, it was rarely "I think you're wrong", and more often "I don't think that's important, instead THIS is important". (Give or take some random insults thrown in, because why not.)

Also, every time I see a debate and everyone interrupts everyone else before they can make any point, I just want to slap all the people involved. Just one or two full interrupted sentences would be nice.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Jan 30, 2017)

TedEH said:


> I'm still sold on the idea that people equate greatness with entirely different things. For a left-leaning person, that very well might be equality, but for someone whose personal values and priorities are different, greatness means an entirely different thing that has nothing to do with everyone being equal.
> 
> If we all aspired to the same ideals, we wouldn't be having political discussions like this in the first place.
> 
> ...



I 100% agree with that first paragraph. 


And as you stated in your "trail of vaguely political videos" that they don't even discuss the same thing is one of the biggest problems. How are you/people supposed to _agree _when you can't even have a focused discussion...?


----------



## narad (Jan 30, 2017)

TedEH said:


> I'm still sold on the idea that people equate greatness with entirely different things. For a left-leaning person, that very well might be equality, but for someone whose personal values and priorities are different, greatness means an entirely different thing that has nothing to do with everyone being equal.



I agree, but I guess my intent in starting the thread was to explore the notion of a particular "great" America that the generally right-leaning camp aspires to, that seems to be a period in time. I feel like the right is thinking that we had it great once, and need to get back to it, which I would argue we were lucky to have at all and is essentially impossible to regain without destroying the quality of life for millions of people outside of America.


----------



## TedEH (Jan 30, 2017)

^ I that this particular type of "greatness" is not something anyone quantifiably had, so much as something that was aspired towards. It's been said already, but it's that sort of "American Dream" deal- there was, at one point, a sense of progress, that this was a place where progress was happening, where there were more freedoms than other places, etc. That's not so much the outlook anymore. Lots of places have the same freedoms, "progress" is less quantifiably "happening" (depending on your definition of progress), and we can't really point out ways that we're better than other countries. (By "we", I do mean "you" though, since I'm not American. Edit: And you're probably not either, so I guess that's a generic "you".)

I guess it's a question of what to aspire towards now? And I think people disagree on the answer to that question.


----------



## mongey (Jan 30, 2017)

vilk said:


> Non-white women weren't even allowed to vote until 1965
> 
> We can talk about 1945, but it was during that same year that we also rounded up *Americans* and put them in concentration camps for having a Japanese surname.
> 
> ...



yep , and lets not forget in 1945 when USA wiped out 200k civilians in one swipe ,and people are still suffering from it

yeah, so great to me.But seeing trump wants to up the arms race again I guess he disagrees 

but don't worry , I don't feel like my country is great either, so your not alone


----------



## Sumsar (Feb 2, 2017)

With several people saying that greatness is the same as being equal, I think it's worth it to take the time to also discuss the definition of "equal". 

It sounds like many people in this thread views 'equality' as that everybody should be, own and think the same. So basicly communism.

In my country, which I guess politically is a happy mix of communism and capitalism, 'equality' is more tought of as having the same opportunities in life. What you do with them is entirely up to you, that is your freedom.
So with paid education and free healtcare people are 'equal' to live their life however they want to.

How do you define 'equality'?


----------



## odibrom (Feb 2, 2017)

It is about equity, not equality... what makes a country great, I mean...


----------



## HeavyMetal4Ever (Feb 2, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I'm sorry, but the entire NOTION of equality for all men (and women) of all races and religions is a uniquely American idea.
> 
> You belittle the intellectual and moral advancements of giants.



To me, this post reads like two people having a debate, with the second statement being a response to the first.


----------



## narad (Feb 2, 2017)

Sumsar said:


> It sounds like many people in this thread views 'equality' as that everybody should be, own and think the same.



I don't know where you got that. I would guess this is no one's view of equality [in this thread].


----------



## Andromalia (Feb 2, 2017)

narad said:


> I agree, but I guess my intent in starting the thread was to explore the notion of a particular "great" America that the generally right-leaning camp aspires to, that seems to be a period in time. I feel like the right is thinking that we had it great once, and need to get back to it, which I would argue we were lucky to have at all and is essentially impossible to regain without destroying the quality of life for millions of people outside of America.



I have the feeling in that context that what they want is pre civil war america transposed to modern times. Before the ban on slavery and before Darwin published one of the most important scientific books of all time. A return to ignorance where someone like trump would be seen as intelligent, where he could beat his slaves and talk about Noah's ark ad nauseam.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 4, 2017)

Here's a question. When you refer to equality, do you mean equal opportunity or equal outcome? Because I'm here to tell you both need work, and the only way to do that is equal effort from all sides and equal effort would solve both problems.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 4, 2017)

Andromalia said:


> I have the feeling in that context that what they want is pre civil war america transposed to modern times. Before the ban on slavery and before Darwin published one of the most important scientific books of all time. A return to ignorance where someone like trump would be seen as intelligent, where he could beat his slaves and talk about Noah's ark ad nauseam.




or if you paid attention to the campaign; back to when American manufacturing built the 20th century middle class. but please, go back to posting occupy democrats memes


----------



## narad (Feb 4, 2017)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> or if you paid attention to the campaign; back to when American manufacturing built the 20th century middle class. but please, go back to posting occupy democrats memes



What should we manufacture these days? Dolls made out of coal?


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 5, 2017)

narad said:


> What should we manufacture these days? Dolls made out of coal?



Anything we can to keep jobs in the country?  If you think America has no business manufacturing anything, I'd like you to go through your house and remove everything that says USA. Hell, while you're at it, go ahead and set your house on fire.


----------



## narad (Feb 5, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Anything we can to keep jobs in the country?  If you think America has no business manufacturing anything, I'd like you to go through your house and remove everything that says USA. Hell, while you're at it, go ahead and set your house on fire.



Not sure what the point is... seems like if I threw out everything that says USA on it, I'd still have pretty much everything in my line of sight, apart from a couple guitar pedals. If I had to throw out everything made in China, then I'd be in real trouble. And until Americans are willing to take a $3/hr wage for putting macbooks together, I'm not sure how that's going to change.

You have to invest in new technology and build up jobs around that. Once you've lost the edge, there's no going back to manufacturing some product that's already produced from a developing nation. These are the kinds of jobs you want.


----------



## Keel (Feb 5, 2017)

I'm on the side of America doesn't manufacture anything, and shouldn't. It would be too expensive! Screw manufacturing jobs, we need to work on the education system so we can have people working at jobs that are not manufacturing or manual labor. Do we really want to go back to the days where making 5 dollars a day for putting together fords is considered a good job?


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 5, 2017)

narad said:


> Not sure what the point is... seems like if I threw out everything that says USA on it, I'd still have pretty much everything in my line of sight, apart from a couple guitar pedals. If I had to throw out everything made in China, then I'd be in real trouble. And until Americans are willing to take a $3/hr wage for putting macbooks together, I'm not sure how that's going to change.
> 
> You have to invest in new technology and build up jobs around that. Once you've lost the edge, there's no going back to manufacturing some product that's already produced from a developing nation. These are the kinds of jobs you want.



New technology IS being developed all the time though and as long as the companies remain profitable, they can continue to pay decent wages. I build shocks/struts for a living and they are always coming up with new ideas to enhance productivity, safety, and efficiency. They've done this at my job many times and as a result, it's working. Point is, if you can keep jobs here, you should. Many of the factories that did go overseas, and I've seen two of them as I've worked at them were factories that refused to adapt to the new age. At my current job, we're adding on to older machines while machines at my old job didn't work right because management didn't understand that machines need better parts to keep it running longer, especially since the machines were 60 years old. Machines break down, productivity and quality is sacrificed, and when management is out of touch they do what they can to salvage. Thing is, not all management is out of touch and as such, not all jobs should go overseas if it can be avoided.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 5, 2017)

Keel said:


> I'm on the side of America doesn't manufacture anything, and shouldn't. It would be too expensive! Screw manufacturing jobs, we need to work on the education system so we can have people working at jobs that are not manufacturing or manual labor. Do we really want to go back to the days where making 5 dollars a day for putting together fords is considered a good job?



Why though? Why get rid of manual labor? That's what some people are cut out for and what they like to do. Not everyone wants to be stuck in an office somewhere doing paperwork. Also, I'm not sure how out of touch you are with the pay scale at factories, but I can promise you, we're not hurting unless the person at hand is going through a temp service. It really seems you have a skewed and uninformed opinion about manufacturing, especially when it comes to cost. And do you want to know why labor is cheaper in other countries? Because the conditions of those working environments are terrible compared to ours. Also, when you say it's cheaper to manufacture somewhere else, whose side are you on? The money grubbing CEO or the man/woman trying to support their family? I see no positive side towards your opinion that getting rid of manufacturing jobs is what needs to happen. If everyone was cut out for jobs that required education, no one would be at the factory. What about the people who aren't cut out for it? .... them, huh?


----------



## Keel (Feb 6, 2017)

Im not saying get rid of all manual labor. I'm just saying that America cannot be a key manufacturer. The monetary value just doesn't add up. People in America are complaining about the minimum wage being what it is, so there's no way we can make a product without it being much more expensive than most other countries. And "being in an office doing paperwork" isn't what people get an education to do. Idk man I've been doing manual and semi skilled labor since I've gotten out of high school and my general consensus on it is that everyone is dead broke. So no matter what, those people are getting screwed over. When it comes to quality, it's a hypocrisy in itself. The people in the system working trying to support their family are going to go for the good that was produced by people in lesser working conditions because it's much cheaper, whereas the person who doesn't have to worry as much is going to buy the product that makes them feel better because it wasn't made under those working conditions (and not everyone that can afford them is buying them, while also being a very niche market to begin with.). I just feel the education system in America is weak as hell, and we would be better off having well educated people coming up with ideas or leading projects, as opposed to people making things. Leave that to the countries who have sweatshops. (I understand the working conditions there are terrible, but that's the world we live in. How many of you own a China made guitar? Or a cell phone? Or a TV?)


----------



## big_aug (Feb 6, 2017)

Manual labor is going away whether you want it to or not. Manufacturing is gone and is never coming back. Automation is the future and we better figure out how to cope with the changes real fast.

Here's an article I read from another forum I frequent:

http://www.zmescience.com/other/economics/china-factory-robots-03022017/

Now imagine another 10-20 years for the development and advancement of automation. Wages in China are already very low and it's still cheaper and more productive to use automation. US manufacturing is never going to happen again. Maybe short term stuff, but long term, it's over.

Robots will make the robots that make the robots that make stuff.


----------



## Grand Rabbit (Feb 6, 2017)

I'm sure I own plenty of things which were made in China or other countries in which atrocious labor conditions prevail, however that does not make it right. 

It's hypocritical of me to say this, sure, since I own things which are made by people in those countries and terrible labor conditions, but it's a broken system which is taking advantage of the poor and hungry.

I don't think it's enough to say 'that's just the world we live in'. We have to hope and strive for a better world.

edit: also yeah, automation is moving in, and that's a good thing if we can adjust properly. With automation taking over most manufacturing jobs, hopefully we can find a way to subsidize citizens and provide a basic quality of life which is far above our current average.


----------



## narad (Feb 6, 2017)

Grand Rabbit said:


> I'm sure I own plenty of things which were made in China or other countries in which atrocious labor conditions prevail, however that does not make it right.



It doesn't make it wrong, per se. It's better to have the option to work in a ....ty Chinese factory than starve. When a company like Apple makes all their phone parts in China, it is without question exploitation, but it also ultimately improves work conditions there.


----------



## MFB (Feb 6, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Why though? Why get rid of manual labor? That's what some people are cut out for and what they like to do.



If people like to do it, that's one thing, but if you think the second a robot can take over doing what people do for a living with the same results, that the person will be keeping their job - you're probably in for a rude awakening.

We're already seeing it at the retail level with Amazon rolling out stores where there's no more cashiers, so that means I imagine purely stocking and unloading is done by people; and that's not that hard, so it's probably a skeleton crew. How long until they're gone?

It's only a matter of time before manual labor is automated, and why should companies be forced to keep it run by people when a machine could do it probably better, and for a one-time cost (not counting maintenance) and they no longer have to provide PTO, sick/maternity leave, and all the other human variables?


----------



## Andromalia (Feb 6, 2017)

Mainly because, at some point, companies need customers who have an income.


----------



## narad (Feb 6, 2017)

MFB said:


> If people like to do it, that's one thing, but if you think the second a robot can take over doing what people do for a living with the same results, that the person will be keeping their job - you're probably in for a rude awakening.
> 
> We're already seeing it at the retail level with Amazon rolling out stores where there's no more cashiers, so that means I imagine purely stocking and unloading is done by people; and that's not that hard, so it's probably a skeleton crew. How long until they're gone?
> 
> It's only a matter of time before manual labor is automated, and why should companies be forced to keep it run by people when a machine could do it probably better, and for a one-time cost (not counting maintenance) and they no longer have to provide PTO, sick/maternity leave, and all the other human variables?



The big shock in the US is going to be with autonomous freight driving. Give that another 5 years max, and that's 3.5 million jobs.


----------



## vilk (Feb 6, 2017)

^and don't forget cabbies and delivery drivers.


----------



## MFB (Feb 6, 2017)

narad said:


> The big shock in the US is going to be with autonomous freight driving. Give that another 5 years max, and that's 3.5 million jobs.





Aside from how many jobs there are, the idea of those being self-driving at their weight is my bigger fear


----------



## vilk (Feb 6, 2017)

Really? I'm on the other side--I trust a cpu way more than I trust these speed-head truckers. I might be a little biased though since my office is right next to a big freight company. But those guys think that because they're on an access road that they don't need to look before pulling out, and I've been almost killed at least 3 times since I started working here.

I understand that a human driver can probably drive a sedan as well as a computer if not better, but there's no way that I believe truckers can really see around their 36 wheel tractor trailer as well as multiple strategically placed cameras and laser sensors.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 6, 2017)

Manufacturing is not ever going away. Jobs in manufacturing are just going to be constantly redefined.

The idea that we ought to recreate the manufacturing work force of the 1960's is foolish if we ignore the dynamics that caused it to move to China and Mexico in the first place. The idea of taxing imports to the point where no one can afford them is not going to make the USA competitive. And, before we get a bunch of manufacturing centered here again, we need to have some technological innovation that sparks the move.

Sitting there, saying that we are going to create millions of jobs by taxing the hell out of imports from Asia and Central America, is not going to work.


----------



## MFB (Feb 6, 2017)

vilk said:


> Really? I'm on the other side--I trust a cpu way more than I trust these speed-head truckers. I might be a little biased though since my office is right next to a big freight company. But those guys think that because they're on an access road that they don't need to look before pulling out, and I've been almost killed at least 3 times since I started working here.
> 
> I understand that a human driver can probably drive a sedan as well as a computer if not better, but there's no way that I believe truckers can really see around their 36 wheel tractor trailer as well as multiple strategically placed cameras and laser sensors.



Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that self-driving cars/freighters/etc will be more accurate and reliable than humans, it's just going to take time to adapt to not seeing someone behind the wheel of one.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 6, 2017)

Be prepared for freight pirates, who try to hijack self-driving lorries.

Then, they'll have to hire security cars to escort them. New job opportunities for both the pirate and the security escort.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Feb 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Manufacturing is not ever going away. Jobs in manufacturing are just going to be constantly redefined.
> 
> The idea that we ought to recreate the manufacturing work force of the 1960's is foolish if we ignore the dynamics that caused it to move to China and Mexico in the first place. The idea of taxing imports to the point where no one can afford them is not going to make the USA competitive. And, before we get a bunch of manufacturing centered here again, we need to have some technological innovation that sparks the move.
> 
> Sitting there, saying that we are going to create millions of jobs by taxing the hell out of imports from Asia and Central America, is not going to work.




I agree manufacturing/production jobs will never go away. 

I work in a 'production print shop'...that basically just means we do a crap ton of work  There are so many tasks that a computer cannot do, but at the same time I'm in the process of setting up computer software to automate at least 25% of our production right off the bat.

I'll use my industry since that is what I know best  Only 0.5-1.0% of all print shop in the USA are 100% automated (that means you flip a light switch on and everything just starts on it's own)...and it took them at least 10-15 years minimum to get that way.


There will always be a need for some human involvement. IMO the key is to find out where you can benefit/save the most if you automate. For me it's processing orders...other industries it might something completely different.


----------



## big_aug (Feb 6, 2017)

cwhitey2 said:


> I agree manufacturing/production jobs will never go away.
> 
> I work in a 'production print shop'...that basically just means we do a crap ton of work  There are so many tasks that a computer cannot do, but at the same time I'm in the process of setting up computer software to automate at least 25% of our production right off the bat.
> 
> ...





It's not complete automation that is the worry. It's that the number of people required to do the same things will continue to decrease. See the article I posted. They went from 500-600 employees to 60. Is there still human involvement? Yes. There just isn't going to enough jobs for the amount of people we have.

I think we're in for a rude awakening. We have people who want to fire up their base by focusing on jobs that aren't going to happen or will disappear shortly after instead of preparing for what is actually going to happen. Feeding these people pipe dreams of jobs coming back to these rural areas in America where manufacturing has disappeared isn't going to help. I watched some interviews with people from rural Kentucky on CNN and they think their jobs are going to come back to these places because Trump got elected.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 6, 2017)

Even if you automate something, you need a dude who can fix the automated machine when it stops working. I work at a manufacturing facility, and, well, most of my adult life, I've worked either in academia or in manufacturing facilities - and I've seen tons of stuff get automated. It means more training of personnel - instead of pulling a lever, they are maintaining and troubleshooting stuff...it is absolutely a paradigm shift and it puts added pressure on personnel, but the end result means higher production output and more consistent products, nine times out of ten or better, so it's just something you have to do. If you don't your little production shop could easily be swept by the wayside by those who do.

I know there is this sort of mental picture of automated production that people get, it's like Bugs Bunny running on a conveyor belt whilst big machines pound away at parts whilst Raymond Scott's _Powerhouse_ plays and there is not a soul in sight anywhere...but that's just a fantasy.

But...this idea that the president can snap his fingers and create five million manufacturing jobs, where Americans put on their hardhats and drive off to the factory to make stickers that say "100% MADE IN THE U.S.A." is just a pipe dream, unless we find something more interesting to make, and then secure the design or process so that the evil boogiemen in China and Mexico don't steal the intellectual property for it and build it way cheaper than we can...


----------



## big_aug (Feb 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Even if you automate something, you need a dude who can fix the automated machine when it stops working. I work at a manufacturing facility, and, well, most of my adult life, I've worked either in academia or in manufacturing facilities - and I've seen tons of stuff get automated. It means more training of personnel - instead of pulling a lever, they are maintaining and troubleshooting stuff...it is absolutely a paradigm shift and it puts added pressure on personnel, but the end result means higher production output and more consistent products, nine times out of ten or better, so it's just something you have to do. If you don't your little production shop could easily be swept by the wayside by those who do.
> 
> I know there is this sort of mental picture of automated production that people get, it's like Bugs Bunny running on a conveyor belt whilst big machines pound away at parts whilst Raymond Scott's _Powerhouse_ plays and there is not a soul in sight anywhere...but that's just a fantasy.
> 
> But...this idea that the president can snap his fingers and create five million manufacturing jobs, where Americans put on their hardhats and drive off to the factory to make stickers that say "100% MADE IN THE U.S.A." is just a pipe dream, unless we find something more interesting to make, and then secure the design or process so that the evil boogiemen in China and Mexico don't steal the intellectual property for it and build it way cheaper than we can...




Not saying it just runs itself. I already talked about that. The whole reason companies use automation is because it provides better quality, more output, and costs less. The amount of people required to maintain it is a fraction of what would be required if everything was done by workers. There is no fantasy that someone flicks a switch and an entire factory is totally self-sufficient. You're just kind of putting that in there when I never said anything of the sort. The article I read is just one example of a workforce being cut by by a huge amount (90%), replacing them with robots, and production and quality increasing dramatically.

That type of thing is going to happen in a lot of industries I imagine. You don't cut workforce by 25%, 50%, 75% or more and just move people to maintenance positions. Some people would but most of them will just be out of work.

There needs to be a focus on transitioning to new things. We shouldn't be pandering to people and focusing on the past which is never coming back. That's what I'm saying. All this talk of bringing "manufacturing" back, taxing imports, etc are nothing more than short-term boosts at best to gain political capital. The focus is on the next 3-5 years instead of the next 10-20 years, and we'll pay the price later.


----------



## vilk (Feb 6, 2017)

Unless there is multiple full time jobs created for every labor position replaced by automation, it could never be true that automation will create more jobs. It will create new jobs, of course, but never technically "more" jobs. Juxtapose this line graph against the one showing our population growth, and we're headed for trouble. 

I always wonder if part of the solution lies in changing the status quo for "full-time" work. What if everyone worked 30 hours a week instead of 40, and we called it enough to salary and insure? It's my hypothesis that such a move would also improve the social condition of this country because it would mean more time for children to spend with parents.


----------



## extendedsolo (Feb 6, 2017)

vilk said:


> Unless there is multiple full time jobs created for every labor position replaced by automation, it could never be true that automation will create more jobs. It will create new jobs, of course, but never technically "more" jobs. Juxtapose this line graph against the one showing our population growth, and we're headed for trouble.
> 
> I always wonder if part of the solution lies in changing the status quo for "full-time" work. What if everyone worked 30 hours a week instead of 40, and we called it enough to salary and insure? It's my hypothesis that such a move would also improve the social condition of this country because it would mean more time for children to spend with parents.



I've been on this train for a while that 40 hours is completely arbitrary. Yes there are always people that work more, but I think it's stupid that 40 hours is seen as some kind of golden rule. What's more is that more is expected of parents now than has been previously.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 6, 2017)

Sorry, I type slow, so my comment was not directed toward the one immediately above it, nor did I even see that post until after.



vilk said:


> Unless there is multiple full time jobs created for every labor position replaced by automation, it could never be true that automation will create more jobs. It will create new jobs, of course, but never technically "more" jobs. Juxtapose this line graph against the one showing our population growth, and we're headed for trouble.
> 
> I always wonder if part of the solution lies in changing the status quo for "full-time" work. What if everyone worked 30 hours a week instead of 40, and we called it enough to salary and insure? It's my hypothesis that such a move would also improve the social condition of this country because it would mean more time for children to spend with parents.



I don't think you were addressing me, but, just to be clear, I never said more jobs, just more training for those who stick around. I think the age of lay-off's due to automation are mostly dwindled, since the automation of manufacturing jobs already happened in the 1980's and 1990's.

Regarding 40 hours of work per week, it totally seems arbitrary, but it's not entirely that way, just mostly  The anecdote, at least, is that companies wanted employees to have 1/3 of the day for work, 1/3 for sleep, and 1/3 for spending money.


----------



## vilk (Feb 6, 2017)

It's a point I try to bring up any time there's discussion of "robot maintenance" as a popular occupation of the future, just to keep everyone's head level. I have before heard people talk about the future of automation and how everyone will have new and interesting jobs to work that are related to maintenance of automatons. If that were true, either the automatons will be total pieces of sh/t or most people definitely wont have 40 hours of work to do.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 6, 2017)

vilk said:


> It's a point I try to bring up any time there's discussion of "robot maintenance" as a popular occupation of the future, just to keep everyone's head level. I have before heard people talk about the future of automation and how everyone will have new and interesting jobs to work that are related to maintenance of automatons. If that were true, either the automatons will be total pieces of sh/t or most people definitely wont have 40 hours of work to do.



Gotcha.

I mean, technically, it's a new job...it's just a new more-skilled job replacing a dozen or so unskilled jobs.

There are a lot of growing pains, but this is all actually part of progress. Before assembly lines, people generally had to make stuff themselves or barter stuff you could make for some stuff you could not make. It has gotten better since then. The fluidity of the economy back in the 1950's and 1960's, though, cannot be solely credited to manufacturing. Yes, processes were better then than in the 1930's, but, there wasn't really a quantum leap in manufacturing technology, just in a lot of little improvements. I would argue that if you hypothetically took machines from the 1960's and transported them back to the 1930's and reverse-engineered them, it would not have broken the world out of the Great Depression, necessarily.

So, now with a lot of production being automated, robots take people's jobs. I guess there are not too many jobs for the proverbial illegal immigrant to take from John Q. Public.


----------



## MFB (Feb 7, 2017)

Well, the timing of this one couldn't have been more appropriate


----------



## cwhitey2 (Feb 7, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Even if you automate something, you need a dude who can fix the automated machine when it stops working...



Well in my case those people are already here. There won't be any growth or loss in this area.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 7, 2017)

cwhitey2 said:


> Well in my case those people are already here. There won't be any growth or loss in this area.



Right...I guess I don't get your point or else maybe you didn't get my point.


----------



## vilk (Feb 7, 2017)

I think it was similar to my point, that automation wont make more jobs.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 7, 2017)

vilk said:


> I think it was similar to my point, that automation wont make more jobs.



No one said that automation would make more jobs, though. Everyone seems to have been echoing the statement that automation does not create more jobs for a couple of posts each...

My point was that automation makes new jobs that require more specialized skills and removes a portion of unskilled jobs, and also that automation increases a facility's output and reduces inconsistencies that can lead to quality problems. I raised those points, because Trump seems to be thinking (based on what little detail he's given about his jobs plan) that boosting tariffs and taxes will increase demand for American manufactured goods, which will stimulate production facilities to increase output and create more jobs. I was just poking a few more holes in that perceived model of economic growth.

In the context of making America great once again, there were several reasons why the US economy grew in the 50's and 60's, and none of those reasons are relevant in today's economy.

I expect the jobs market to keep opening up as it has been since 2009, for a little while. If Trump continues to preach this rhetoric about the economy, I expect there to be null effect of that. If he starts putting some sort of executive action into whatever half baked idea he has for stimulating job growth, I fear it might have a negative effect. If that couples with toxic policies on immigration and social reform, then there might be a downturn in job growth as an effect, but it will be delayed, as these things always are.


----------



## narad (Feb 7, 2017)

TEDx talk was a bit wholesomely optimistic. There's not a lesson from the past that is close to being analogous to the current problems in automation. Automation before was primarily mindless tasks -- replacing routine physical labor with a large machine that required maintenance. Automation of the future is replacing intelligent behaviors with software that can almost immediately scale from a single solution to millions of instances worldwide. That's much more of a game-changer than the old school variant, when each task required a more sophisticated purpose-specific machine.


----------



## MFB (Feb 7, 2017)

I hadn't watched it before posting, but as I did, it seemed like he had a different narrative then us here  It was more of "Hey, check this out too, maybe there's stuff we hadn't thought of!" and there was, just not really worth while stuff.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Feb 7, 2017)

There's a forthcoming paper from MIT/Yale that estimates one robot can replace 7 workers. That's a pretty serious threat to the workforce if true.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 8, 2017)

Keel said:


> Im not saying get rid of all manual labor. I'm just saying that America cannot be a key manufacturer. The monetary value just doesn't add up. People in America are complaining about the minimum wage being what it is, so there's no way we can make a product without it being much more expensive than most other countries. And "being in an office doing paperwork" isn't what people get an education to do. Idk man I've been doing manual and semi skilled labor since I've gotten out of high school and my general consensus on it is that everyone is dead broke. So no matter what, those people are getting screwed over. When it comes to quality, it's a hypocrisy in itself. The people in the system working trying to support their family are going to go for the good that was produced by people in lesser working conditions because it's much cheaper, whereas the person who doesn't have to worry as much is going to buy the product that makes them feel better because it wasn't made under those working conditions (and not everyone that can afford them is buying them, while also being a very niche market to begin with.). I just feel the education system in America is weak as hell, and we would be better off having well educated people coming up with ideas or leading projects, as opposed to people making things. Leave that to the countries who have sweatshops. (I understand the working conditions there are terrible, but that's the world we live in. How many of you own a China made guitar? Or a cell phone? Or a TV?)



That comes off a bit elitist and imperialistic. Exploiting poor countries should not be an acceptable practice. I agree that turning the ship around and preventing countries from doing so is fairly impossible at this point, but I don't approve of just accepting it as an 'it is what it is' kind of thing either. It comes across like corporate apologetics.



narad said:


> It doesn't make it wrong, per se. It's better to have the option to work in a ....ty Chinese factory than starve. When a company like Apple makes all their phone parts in China, it is without question exploitation, but it also ultimately improves work conditions there.



The countries and businesses that profit from exploiting poor countries should force them to pay higher wages. People talk up the global economy and how it benefits everyone in the world, but it doesn't benefit anyone if globalism just leads to a race to the bottom, which inevitably means inhumane working conditions and crap pay. Just accepting it as the way the world works is exactly why we can't compete with slave labor. We've normalized it and made it acceptable.



MFB said:


> It's only a matter of time before manual labor is automated, and why should companies be forced to keep it run by people when a machine could do it probably better, and for a one-time cost (not counting maintenance) and they no longer have to provide PTO, sick/maternity leave, and all the other human variables?



The day that happens upward mobility will be a thing of the past. Those who have already made it through the ranks will have their old money and capital while the rest of us just settle with what we're given. In many ways it's already like that, but once it's in full swing it will basically be an aristocracy. 



bostjan said:


> Even if you automate something, you need a dude who can fix the automated machine when it stops working. I work at a manufacturing facility, and, well, most of my adult life, I've worked either in academia or in manufacturing facilities - and I've seen tons of stuff get automated. It means more training of personnel - instead of pulling a lever, they are maintaining and troubleshooting stuff...it is absolutely a paradigm shift and it puts added pressure on personnel, but the end result means higher production output and more consistent products, nine times out of ten or better, so it's just something you have to do. If you don't your little production shop could easily be swept by the wayside by those who do.
> 
> I know there is this sort of mental picture of automated production that people get, it's like Bugs Bunny running on a conveyor belt whilst big machines pound away at parts whilst Raymond Scott's _Powerhouse_ plays and there is not a soul in sight anywhere...but that's just a fantasy.
> 
> But...this idea that the president can snap his fingers and create five million manufacturing jobs, where Americans put on their hardhats and drive off to the factory to make stickers that say "100% MADE IN THE U.S.A." is just a pipe dream, unless we find something more interesting to make, and then secure the design or process so that the evil boogiemen in China and Mexico don't steal the intellectual property for it and build it way cheaper than we can...



The population is growing globally and automation steals more and more jobs by the day, replacing a fraction of the jobs lost for things like maintenance. We may not be able to go backwards, but what we're currently doing, and the direction we're headed, isn't working. 



TheHandOfStone said:


> There's a forthcoming paper from MIT/Yale that estimates one robot can replace 7 workers. That's a pretty serious threat to the workforce if true.



Agreed.


----------



## tedtan (Feb 8, 2017)

We can say that it is not acceptable ethically, and I agree, but how many of us are willing to step up and pay for first world made goods? Doing so is like taking a 50-90% reduction in purchasing power.

I know I have mainly US and Japanese made guitars, but I'd be pissed if I had to pay 3,000+ for a US made iPhone or iPad.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 8, 2017)

flint757 said:


> The population is growing globally and automation steals more and more jobs by the day, replacing a fraction of the jobs lost for things like maintenance. We may not be able to go backwards, but what we're currently doing, and the direction we're headed, isn't working.



Well, yes, but the statement about the world population growing and the statement about automation stealing jobs are not really corollary to one another. Automation steals jobs from people if they already have the jobs. People trying to join the workforce as unskilled workers may have a harder time if the job market is in flux while older people are looking for new jobs, but if a job is replaced by an automaton, young people are not really directly affected.

It's been the case for centuries now that skilled work is becoming more desirable and unskilled work is becoming much less in demand.

You can't bring back old tech jobs in any bulk that will have widespread effect on the economy. The economy is not boosted by old tech, it requires a flux of new tech to stay competitive with other markets.

So we agree that a paradigm shift in how we think about employment is necessary to regain the strength of the middle class. I think we agree that reducing the number of automated jobs is not really the key, either.

In today's world, it's the same as any world of the past, you have to have a service or good that people want in order to gain wealth from it. The idea that kids can graduate from high school, then go out and get a job and put food on the table is not getting outdated; it never existed. It took either a skill employers wanted or the willingness to do hard work. I think the generation of millenials have some interesting skills sets that nobody prior expected, but, a portion of these young people are stuck without marketable skills and either unwilling or unable to do hard labour. Gen X before had a lot of problems with some similar issues, as does every generation, so I'm not ragging anyone, just trying to expose a potential problem with a popular mindset.

So, you hear stories of automation taking away jobs. Like, Joe lost his job cutting a 1" squares out of a sheet of material on an assembly line, because there's now a machine that cuts a thousand squares a second, and does it to tighter tolerances, and does it cheaper than Joe. But, the truth is, that Joe's job really wasn't that great. Maybe Joe can take this opportunity to get a better job now...it'd be more of an opportunity, though, if Joe had learned some other skills during his 15 years cutting squares on the assembly line, or if there weren't a dozen other square cutters looking for work for the same reason...you follow my point here? These automated jobs can be a good thing or a bad thing for employees, it's just a change in opportunities. Do you need skill to be a truck driver? Of course, but, there is a long time to prepare for these jobs to start getting replaced by self-driving trucks, even if that does happen. Driving a truck is tough, though- it's somewhat dangerous, and gruelling- so maybe this could be an opportunity for some of them for a better way of life. Either way, I don't think anyone is stopping the development of automated trucking, so it's an unstoppable force. If we don't do it, someone else will. Soon.


----------



## narad (Feb 8, 2017)

Honestly if someone offered me to stop what I'm making, and make something different instead for a 30% pay increase in work conditions comparable with the standards in my country, I'd be happy. Am I being exploited? Maybe, from an external perspective, but from my perspective I just got a killer job.

So when talking about iphone glass or similar, it seems like a win-win. Big plants often raise the standards for work safety and policy. When some no-name company overseas it's production, maybe they're more exploitative -- I'm not sure. I've only listened to the iphone glass story on NPR ;-)


----------



## Discoqueen (Feb 9, 2017)

I'm pretty sure we've been destabilizing South and Central America for a long time, oppressed ethnic minorities, women, and LGBTQ folks our entire history, so America was great for some people, I guess.


----------



## Demiurge (Feb 9, 2017)

Discoqueen said:


> so America was *great for* some people, I guess.



And that part of it is really the issue. Even in the worst parts of human history, there was probably someone thriving and maybe profiting. I wonder if we're actually progressing/regressing or simply just trading-off custody of the bully pulpit all this time.


----------



## AxeHappy (Feb 10, 2017)

tedtan said:


> We can say that it is not acceptable ethically, and I agree, but how many of us are willing to step up and pay for first world made goods? Doing so is like taking a 50-90% reduction in purchasing power.
> 
> I know I have mainly US and Japanese made guitars, but I'd be pissed if I had to pay 3,000+ for a US made iPhone or iPad.




Fortunately making things in the developed countries in a less exploitive way wouldn't actually increase prices that much:

https://9to5mac.com/2016/06/13/iphone-made-in-usa-cost/


----------



## narad (Feb 11, 2017)

AxeHappy said:


> Fortunately making things in the developed countries in a less exploitive way wouldn't actually increase prices that much:
> 
> https://9to5mac.com/2016/06/13/iphone-made-in-usa-cost/



That's surprising!

Though I wonder how many jobs the "assembly-only" option would actually bring. In a discussion between some silicon valley tech leaders in some immediately post-trump article I was reading (sorry for the complete not-cite) they were talking specifically about how microprocessor jobs were never coming back to the US because China had already invested so much into the necessary infrastructure and was churning this out with a cheap labor force and a close connection to all the necessary components. This article talks about labor costs and distribution, but for all the parts that could be manufactureed here, I wonder if they're including the costs of essentially reconstructing the entire facilities necessary to do so.


----------



## fps (Feb 11, 2017)

Might have been mentioned, I recommend Rose of the Robots as a business book on the issue of automation.


----------



## McKay (Feb 19, 2017)

Yes and here's why it's going to stay that way barring nuclear war.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 22, 2017)

I wish I had a link to it, but some years ago, there was a special report on NPR about how $20 jeans make it from the cotton fields to Walmart. It was something crazy where the cotton pickers, material weavers, dye colourers, tailors, and everything in between were being paid fractions of a penny, then the factory sold them to an import/export holding company in China for $0.75 per pair, and then that company would sell them to Walmart for something more like $17 per pair, and Walmart would mark them up a tiny margin to cover taxes and fees and make a small profit. When the media exposed the deplorable conditions in these textile and garment factories, after one of them literally crumbled apart during a work shift, the factory owners said that there's no money for them if they do simple building repairs, because, if they raised the price of the jeans to, say, ninety cents per pair, the Chinese companies would simply get them someplace cheaper.

So, all of the outrage, at the time, was along the lines of ~why don't they go ahead and raise the price to $0.90 per pair and do building repairs and if the Chinese company doesn't want them anymore, someone else will step in to make the huge margin minus the fifteen cent difference. The world does not work that way. If the Chinese company doesn't buy the $0.90 jeans from the Bangladesh factory, they'll buy them from Zimbabwe or Mongolia, or wherever.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 22, 2017)

Supposedly the chemicals they use to do things like acid wash on jeans is a serious health risk as well, on top of the crap pay the workers receive. There's chemicals floating in the air and the water is polluted by the chemicals turning the nearby waterways blue.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 23, 2017)

flint757 said:


> Supposedly the chemicals they use to do things like acid wash on jeans is a serious health risk as well, on top of the crap pay the workers receive. There's chemicals floating in the air and the water is polluted by the chemicals turning the nearby waterways blue.



Look at the southern coast of Bangladesh on Google Earth. Is that dye flowing into the Indian Ocean, or some natural phenomenon?


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Feb 23, 2017)

fps said:


> Might have been mentioned, I recommend Rose of the Robots as a business book on the issue of automation.



Is the "rise of the robots" going to replace more jobs than the steam engine?

I hope so. 

It's almost like we have been through this before....

How many of you are still upset about not being a sharecropper?

The first industrial revolution produced the modern world as we know it, and ALLOWED us to move our workforce into more meaningful jobs, that utilized the human brain....

Here's to more of that stuff! If you are worried about being antiquated by a robot, you have no one to blame but yourself....


----------



## estabon37 (Feb 24, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> Is the "rise of the robots" going to replace more jobs than the steam engine?
> 
> I hope so.
> 
> ...



I mostly agree, with the exception of the bit in bold. The following video by CGP Grey explains why I make an exception.



In short, we really haven't been through this before. In the US alone, there are 4.4 million people whose job is to drive people and goods from point A to point B. Driverless vehicles are absolutely going to be the death of jobs in that industry, because vehicle repair is a sector that already exists, already modernises with every new innovation in transportation, and moving 4.4 million people into administrative / maintenance roles within the industry is just not an option. That's without factoring in that an automated vehicle doesn't require sleep, unlike human drivers, so any company could essentially run fewer vehicles for more hours, or the same amount of vehicles for significantly improved productivity. 

Obviously, not every sector will experience this drastic a change. But it seems that the sectors that will be most effected are heavily populated by low-skill workers. Retraining or redirecting millions of people will be very difficult, and it's unlikely that the private sector will show much interest in footing the bill, preferring to leave it up to individuals to take on thousands of dollars worth of debt to train for an industry that might not have a job for them. Speaking of which...



CapnForsaggio said:


> If you are worried about being antiquated by a robot, you have no one to blame but yourself....



There's obviously a limit to how many people any sector can reasonably employ. I work as a teacher; a job that is difficult to automate, though not impossible. I used to work in transportation, but about seven years ago I decided to retrain because I saw a brighter future in a higher-skilled sector. It seems that thousands of people saw the same thing at the same time. In the state I live in there are significantly more teachers than there are jobs. I think many teachers, parents, and even students would argue that smaller class sizes would benefit everybody, so hypothetically you could create work for those teachers very quickly, but the sector isn't willing to foot the bill for the significant expense of building those extra classrooms / schools and paying those extra salaries when the existing system is at worst sufficient and at best quite effective. Also, it's not likely that demand for teachers will increase, considering Australia's fertility rate over the last 30 years (which, for the record, I think is a good thing). 

Don't get me wrong. I'd rather see us elevate ourselves culturally (and as a species in general) by taking on more meaningful work. That's why I did it. I just don't think it's possible on the scale we need / want unless we drastically change the way we redistribute wealth and resources.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Feb 24, 2017)

I think you are underestimating how dramatic the change from horses to rails and trains was.

And how dramatic things like automtic harvesters were...

EVERYONE used to work manual labor jobs. 

In 100 years, everyone will be working at more meaningful jobs. We won't miss the truck drivers anymore than we miss the stage coach operators....


----------



## bostjan (Feb 24, 2017)

Also, what is the alternative? Economics drives the economy. If something is invented that is more economic than the old way, how long do you think the market will support the old way? Furthermore, what do you think someone like you or I can do about it?

Self-driving vehicles are basically a given, at this point. There may be some bugs to work out over the next several years, but there is no way to stop this from happening.

And technological progress is scary, and it displaces people's jobs. But in the grand scheme of things, it makes things better. Innovations like public transportation, automatic elevators, and self-driving trains, and even self driving cars are all making things safer and more convenient in the long run.


----------



## buffa d (Feb 25, 2017)

As much as I like the United States, I've recently come to realize that I just don't understand the country. Gun obsession, racism, over-the-top patriotism... It just does not sit with my own views at all. I'll keep trying though since my wife is American  

To me the whole "make America great" or "America first" issue is never going to happen. The whole modern idea of capitalism is based on cheap goods that the consumers can afford to buy more and more. And it's not going to happen if the products are made in the states. Additionally, the system supports a certain greed that makes moving factories abroad very tempting. I mean why wouldn't you want to make more profit by cutting production costs?

Also, whether you want it or not, we live in a global market. And refusing to deal with others is only going to hinder your own market.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Feb 25, 2017)

^Ueah but good luck telling someone they're bat sh1t crazy and having them take it well. That's the problem. People are too set in their ways and afraid of cognitive dissonance that they'll never accept their ideologies as incorrect no matter how insane. The sheer amount of idiots connected on the internet allows them to validate each their as well.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 26, 2017)

I personally believe that full on automation is a ways off. Even the simplest jobs in where I work have so many nuances that have to be accounted for. The most minor defects such as chips in the paint, wrong color, dents, leakers... Man, I'm not saying it's not coming. But they are going to have to build some accurate machines and bring some people in to supervise the machines. Machines break down every single day and those are the ones that are run manually, not automatically. The automated lines where I work tend to break down and when they do, it's usually enough to cripple the line for a couple hours. This has been happening for over 50 years in my plant alone. 

Even if they do automate many of these jobs, you're still going to need the human element in one form or another. And personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Keep training our people. Offer them schooling to do these new jobs.


----------



## narad (Feb 26, 2017)

^^ The automation of the future is not rooted in big machines that do specific tasks, that break down, and need constant human intervention. It's in software that can perform super-human levels of highly skilled mental tasks. Future production is 3d-printing. Future transport/distribution is drones and autonomous vehicles. But more importantly, the future of customer service, data analytics, medical diagnosis, financial advisement and paralegal is all artificial intelligence. That's major distruption.


----------



## PunkBillCarson (Feb 26, 2017)

Off tangent here, but what do you think about the thought that we are essentially just organic androids with perceived actual intelligence, but may instead be just a high form of artificial intelligence?


----------



## narad (Feb 26, 2017)

PunkBillCarson said:


> Off tangent here, but what do you think about the thought that we are essentially just organic androids with perceived actual intelligence, but may instead be just a high form of artificial intelligence?



There's no difference. We use artificial intelligence to refer to intelligent behavior arising in non-biological systems, but intelligence, both in us and machines, is just a point on the spectrum.


----------



## Spinedriver (Feb 26, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Also, what is the alternative? Economics drives the economy. If something is invented that is more economic than the old way, how long do you think the market will support the old way? Furthermore, what do you think someone like you or I can do about it?
> 
> Self-driving vehicles are basically a given, at this point. There may be some bugs to work out over the next several years, but there is no way to stop this from happening.
> 
> And technological progress is scary, and it displaces people's jobs. But in the grand scheme of things, it makes things better. Innovations like public transportation, automatic elevators, and self-driving trains, and even self driving cars are all making things safer and more convenient in the long run.



The problem of the 'self driving' cars is that they are being primarily developed by companies in California. Here in Canada, with all of the potholes, snow, ice & salt/dirt they put on the roads in the winter, there's not a chance in hell those sensors will work. Not only that, how much will fares cost because all of the tech involved will NOT be cheap.

Automation may be the wave of the future but it'll be only for those who can afford it.


----------



## narad (Feb 26, 2017)

Spinedriver said:


> The problem of the 'self driving' cars is that they are being primarily developed by companies in California. Here in Canada, with all of the potholes, snow, ice & salt/dirt they put on the roads in the winter, there's not a chance in hell those sensors will work. Not only that, how much will fares cost because all of the tech involved will NOT be cheap.
> 
> Automation may be the wave of the future but it'll be only for those who can afford it.



The tech isn't that expensive -- hobbyists have built self-driving cars themselves for less than $3k. It's the software that's the obstacle here. It doesn't work via some aggregation of sensors. It works, like you, from visual information straight-on. Nvidia's tech demo videos on youtube will give you a pretty good idea of what's up. It's, frankly speaking, better at analyzing road scenes and detecting hazards than humans are.

And regarding Canada, I'm sure heavy snow conditions will require some additional engineering, but more and more of the training for autonomous vehicles is being done in a virtual reality setting. These things are not hard to simulate to the point where the system is 90% there, and then tested in real world conditions.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 27, 2017)

^ I don't know how much driving you do in snow, but Canadian winter driving is very.... variable, and unpredictable. I wouldn't expect it to be easy to model in software, by any stretch. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I can see lots of ways it would go wrong. On top of that, even in summer, our roads are very often in terrible shape - the potholes and cracks everywhere are probably easier for software to avoid, but it's still a big obstacle.

IMO, the biggest thing automated driving is going to lack is a sort of intuition. Things like understanding when it's appropriate to take an alternate route because school has just started back, and there's construction starting on a particular route, and certain roads are going to be cracked for a few months after winter because of the ice before they can fix it, or how to change up the drive because of heavier foot traffic in some areas at certain times of the year, or how to get around an accident or something that there's no data for, etc.

I've always thought that automated transportation would only really work on a large scale once we're able to build dedicated infrastructure for it. I can imagine a whole bunch of cool futuristic automated transportation systems that would maybe work really well if we have infinite resources to implement them. But the current roads and cars weren't made with automation in mind.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 27, 2017)

^ Everything in baby steps. You know?

Saying self-driving cars will never work in Canada is like someone, a century ago, saying that automobiles won't work in Canada, for the same reasons. Given enough time, it'll get sorted out.

I think the issue that won't go away is people's desire to be in control. Some folks won't drive an automatic transmission vehicle, because of the lack of control and feedback between the driver and the machine. Here in Vermont, we have carpenters who refuse to use power tools, among other high-tech professions with low-tech "traditional" folks. Throughout the Eastern USA, you have religious sects like Amish, Mennonite, etc., who prefer to eschew technology in general. So...when self-driving cars are introduced, there will be early adopters, there will be problems with the technology, it will very likely be addressed and the technology will very likely re-emerge more reliable. If that happens, it'll only be a matter of time before it starts to spread to folks with less and less income. But...there will still be resistance to it, just like anything and everything else.

What I see as a likely scenario, and this is pure speculation territory, is that industry where driving is necessary- freight, taxi, bus, and so forth, will see a lot of self-driving vehicles, but, private individuals will likely be much slower to give up driving. Driving used to be a leisurely thing, and, despite the stress of sitting in traffic, I think we will see a significant portion of the population prefer to drive manually, even if the cost of automation was negligible and there was a measurable increase in safety.

Also, insurance and things will either get really simplified or really complicated. If insurance companies make auto insurance of these things complex, it'll significantly delay adoption.


----------



## narad (Feb 27, 2017)

TedEH said:


> ^ I don't know how much driving you do in snow, but Canadian winter driving is very.... variable, and unpredictable. I wouldn't expect it to be easy to model in software, by any stretch. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I can see lots of ways it would go wrong. On top of that, even in summer, our roads are very often in terrible shape - the potholes and cracks everywhere are probably easier for software to avoid, but it's still a big obstacle.
> 
> ...
> 
> I've always thought that automated transportation would only really work on a large scale once we're able to build dedicated infrastructure for it. I can imagine a whole bunch of cool futuristic automated transportation systems that would maybe work really well if we have infinite resources to implement them. But the current roads and cars weren't made with automation in mind.



Seeing as how the autonomous vehicle research going on now for everyday driving grew out of a DARPA initiative for military off-road self-driving, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Naturally snow is a different type of obstacle than sand, but with respect to potholes, definitely not an issue.


----------



## vilk (Feb 27, 2017)

DHARMA initiative*


----------



## MFB (Feb 27, 2017)

narad said:


> Seeing as how the autonomous vehicle research going on now for everyday driving grew out of a DARPA initiative for military off-road self-driving, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Naturally snow is a different type of obstacle than sand, but with respect to potholes, definitely not an issue.



Beat me to it, but with LIDAR in combination with automation, I don't see why we couldn't automate vehicles to avoid potholes/cracks/etc to the best degree we could?


----------



## sezna (Feb 27, 2017)

TedEH said:


> ^ I don't know how much driving you do in snow, but Canadian winter driving is very.... variable, and unpredictable. I wouldn't expect it to be easy to model in software, by any stretch. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I can see lots of ways it would go wrong. On top of that, even in summer, our roads are very often in terrible shape - the potholes and cracks everywhere are probably easier for software to avoid, but it's still a big obstacle.
> 
> IMO, the biggest thing automated driving is going to lack is a sort of intuition. Things like understanding when it's appropriate to take an alternate route because school has just started back, and there's construction starting on a particular route, and certain roads are going to be cracked for a few months after winter because of the ice before they can fix it, or how to change up the drive because of heavier foot traffic in some areas at certain times of the year, or how to get around an accident or something that there's no data for, etc.
> 
> I've always thought that automated transportation would only really work on a large scale once we're able to build dedicated infrastructure for it. I can imagine a whole bunch of cool futuristic automated transportation systems that would maybe work really well if we have infinite resources to implement them. But the current roads and cars weren't made with automation in mind.



I work as a programmer for a company that does self driving cars. There is no way cars are gonna be programmed to handle winter roads. They're gonna be equipped with winter tires, and the pressure to maintain stable road conditions will be increased. Cars simply won't drive on roads whose condition isn't known, and if the car senses unstable terrain it will self-arrest (pull over or do the most "controlled" thing possible).


----------



## TedEH (Feb 27, 2017)

^ That's where I was thinking about automated-car-specific infrastructure. Creating roads, or some kind of system, where all (or most) of the required conditions can be known or controlled for. Canadian roads don't really fit that description. I can see a lot of cars just stopped somewhere, and jams happening, because the automation can't handle the cracks and potholes and garbage left in the road, and snowy patches, or 'black ice' or whatever else you have. If there was some kind of system where everything was on rails or something, then those wouldn't matter anymore, but a standard wheels-on-pavement kind of car needs a lot of on-the-spot intuitive decision making that computers aren't very good at.

Closest thing I've worked on is video game vehicles - where you have full control of the environment and the vehicle - and that's hard enough to get right.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 27, 2017)

TedEH said:


> ^ That's where I was thinking about automated-car-specific infrastructure. Creating roads, or some kind of system, where all (or most) of the required conditions can be known or controlled for. Canadian roads don't really fit that description. I can see a lot of cars just stopped somewhere, and jams happening, because the automation can't handle the cracks and potholes and garbage left in the road, and snowy patches, or 'black ice' or whatever else you have. If there was some kind of system where everything was on rails or something, then those wouldn't matter anymore, but a standard wheels-on-pavement kind of car needs a lot of on-the-spot intuitive decision making that computers aren't very good at.
> 
> Closest thing I've worked on is video game vehicles - where you have full control of the environment and the vehicle - and that's hard enough to get right.



You think the roads in Quebec are bad...have you ever been to Michigan?  Have you ever heard of pothole fishing?  It's a pastime in Detroit. So is pothole diving...


----------



## JSanta (Feb 27, 2017)

sezna said:


> I work as a programmer for a company that does self driving cars. There is no way cars are gonna be programmed to handle winter roads. They're gonna be equipped with winter tires, and the pressure to maintain stable road conditions will be increased. Cars simply won't drive on roads whose condition isn't known, and if the car senses unstable terrain it will self-arrest (pull over or do the most "controlled" thing possible).



We just bought a Subaru with Eyesight, and it has to be turned off if it is either snowing or raining too hard. Sensors are only so good. I will not be one of those people saying it won't happen (because it will), but it may be a decade or two for it to be viable.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Feb 27, 2017)

Take things one step further, and explore the moral dilemma of the self-driving car:

_What if your self driving sedan sees an inevitable collision with either a schoolbus or another sedan?_

_What if your self driving sedan sees an inevitable head on collision with another sedan, OR it can drive itself off a cliff?_

What "choices" will self driving cars be allowed to make? A: who knows.

What rights will you have as an operator with regrads to those choices? A: none, go read any contract you've signed in the last decade with any service provider.


----------



## narad (Feb 27, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> What rights will you have as an operator with regrads to those choices? A: none, go read any contract you've signed in the last decade with any service provider.



You will always have the option to take the wheel yourself, at least until self-driving becomes so perfectly tuned to render human driving comparatively reckless.


----------



## flint757 (Feb 27, 2017)

It may be awhile before everyday people are passengers in driver-less cars, but the tech can cost a significant amount of money and still be financially beneficial for a transportation company since they would no longer have to pay a driver 5-6 figure salary annually.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 27, 2017)

The thought is humourous to me that a programmed automaton would ponder moral choices, rather than simply turn to avoid collisions and brake, as it's programmed to do. As if the car's sensors can even distinguish between a small animal and a toddler, and then the onboard computer would have to take a moment to think about whether or not to wreak havoc or simply brake and turn away.

That's what human's do. The car will, much more likely, malfunction, when the cheap half-baked design GM comes up with stops working and then the car will simply drive in a straight line into everything in its path.

I mean, we can't even make cars where the accelerator doesn't inexplicably stick to the floor, where the steering column doesn't suddenly jam up, the lock cylinder eats your key and keeps the car from shutting off, blah blah blah look up automotive recalls.


----------



## TedEH (Feb 27, 2017)

bostjan said:


> ponder moral choices



It wouldn't, literally, but instead just follow whatever instructions it was programmed to follow. If you imagine that the machine is able to identify that this scenario is happening, it doesn't ponder anything, it just follows whatever it has been instructed to do in that scenario- which more likely than not would be a pre-existing list of priorities, or some sort of system of evaluating those priorities. At the end of the day, it's the programmer who has to ponder those moral choices.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 27, 2017)

TedEH said:


> It wouldn't, literally, but instead just follow whatever instructions it was programmed to follow. If you imagine that the machine is able to identify that this scenario is happening, it doesn't ponder anything, it just follows whatever it has been instructed to do in that scenario- which more likely than not would be a pre-existing list of priorities, or some sort of system of evaluating those priorities. At the end of the day, it's the programmer who has to ponder those moral choices.



You are correct, which is why I found the post to which I referred somewhat humourous. My point was that the car is not going to see a schoolbus at any rate, just a large moving object.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Feb 27, 2017)

bostjan said:


> You are correct, which is why I found the post to which I referred somewhat humourous. My point was that the car is not going to see a schoolbus at any rate, just a large moving object.



That's very obtuse... why wouldn't the network of AI cars talk to each other? This would be necessary for any large scale deployment of the technology....

There will CERTAINLY be scenarios where an AI car decides to kill an innocent person, to save more innocent people. Are you ready for this?

I am not.


----------



## bostjan (Feb 27, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> That's very obtuse... why wouldn't the network of AI cars talk to each other? This would be necessary for any large scale deployment of the technology....
> 
> There will CERTAINLY be scenarios where an AI car decides to kill an innocent person, to save more innocent people. Are you ready for this?
> 
> I am not.



Get real, not every object is going to have an ID, and even if it did, the "network" isn't going to have time to handshake everything else before it makes a snap decision to avoid collision. I find it entertaining that you call me "very obtuse" after all of your reckless conjectures in this thread. I tell you what, I'll buy you a beer if there are not self-driving cars or trucks on the road in ten years, otherwise, I like Guinness. I guess if the AI goes all skynet on us and slaughters everyone before then, you'll have to give me a pass on the beer I'd bet you on that one. 

In the past, the technologies have made use of phase angle radar, which pings objects with a unique sweep in order to not only determine position and size, but also speed and direction. This is crucial for the device to recognize the amount of danger another object poses. Objects moving at a high rate of speed toward the device are given high priority in avoiding collision, as are larger objects. I was working on such a devise at Delphi automotive in the Detroit area before it went bankrupt. Of course, they have come a long way since then, but the basics are still the same.

Again, baby steps - this is not going to roll out all at once. To expect such is just silly. You are going to see some concepts in the next couple years, some high end novelty vehicles a couple years after that, then it will gradually work its way toward being a regular consumer item, as the bugs are worked out, unless some sort of Hindenberg-level catastrophe occurs, which is not null liklihood, of course.


----------



## AxeHappy (Mar 4, 2017)

CapnForsaggio said:


> There will CERTAINLY be scenarios where an AI car decides to kill an innocent person, to save more innocent people. Are you ready for this?
> 
> I am not.




As a professional driver, I have a lot of problems with self-driving cars, but most of them are based off the risk of me losing my job in 15-20 years. Not to mention that most the cost in transit is not the driver's wages (despite people loving to bitch about them, as if Transit is an easy job) but rather the cost of fuel and maintenance. Meaning, that the economy could lose a bunch of good paying jobs and save very little money. 


But you can't argue that they won't be safer. Driving a car is the most dangerous thing the average person will do in their entire life and most treat it with a complete lack of disregard that they are driving multi-ton death machines at football fields/seconds speeds. 

The concept that the AI choosing to kill *less* people (not really sure what innocent has to do with any of this? Would it be okay if the car ran over an ex-con?) than more people is bad. Would you prefer it like now, where the human simply panics doesn't think at all and .... just happens? How is causing the *least* possible harm not a good thing?


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Mar 4, 2017)

AxeHappy's post is good.


----------



## narad (Mar 5, 2017)

^^ Almost hit a deer coming home tonight. Definitely a moment where I thought, man, wish there was some autonomous co-pilot to at least recognize the hazard and begin the slow down before I figure it out.


----------



## JSanta (Mar 5, 2017)

narad said:


> ^^ Almost hit a deer coming home tonight. Definitely a moment where I thought, man, wish there was some autonomous co-pilot to at least recognize the hazard and begin the slow down before I figure it out.



That's actually quite a good point. Living where there are a lot of deer, I constantly scan for eye shine and movement at night (even during the day on certain roads). I'd be curious about what kind of risk aversions autonomous cars will use for objects that aren't necessarily an immediate risk. If I see a bunch of deer on the side of the road, I slow down, and if one is crossing the road, I wait at least a few seconds after scanning both sides to see if there are any more waiting to run across.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2017)

In the local news last week, some guy got his gas pedal stuck under his floor mat and chose to crush a pedestrian against a brick wall rather then dive into a river. If his car was AI, I guarantee that, in that very specific situation, one pedestrian would still have been alive. 

I was thinking about this, though, and, well, I'm not sure how much redundancy there is in these vehicles. If there was, say, one radar antenna, and a piece of aluminum foil somehow got kicked up and stuck in the antenna's field of view, it could be a problem. If these cars have any sort of GPS reliance, then they are not going to work in VT, which has less cell coverage per capita than anywhere.

If you're hauling freight for a living, I think this will very much be a game changer in the next 15-20 years that will very likely have a direct effect on your career. But, again, what can you do to stop it? Nothing.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> If these cars have any sort of GPS reliance, then they are not going to work in VT, which has less cell coverage per capita than anywhere.



GPS works on the satellite network rather than cell towers, but it still has issues with drop outs without a direct line of site to the satellites (it's no good in tunnels, etc.) so still presents challenges for self driving car navigation. It will be interesting to see how they get around these types of issues.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov (Mar 6, 2017)

Cars should be pretty damn good at dead reckoning, it's not like a cellphone where you don't have any clean sensors. 

GPS should only be needed for the navigation aspect, anyway. It has a precision of 3 car lengths, or 9 car widths, not good enough for aiming a car.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2017)

tedtan said:


> GPS works on the satellite network rather than cell towers, but it still has issues with drop outs without a direct line of site to the satellites (it's no good in tunnels, etc.) so still presents challenges for self driving car navigation. It will be interesting to see how they get around these types of issues.



I have GPS as well for hiking, and it works ~30% of the time here in the Green Mountain State. Keep in mind that the biggest city in VT is 40k residents. Rutland is the next biggest outside of the Burlington area and is 17k. After that, there are no cities, just small towns and abandoned papermills. There's a town north of me, called Lewis, which has had a population of exactly zero since the early 20th century. People come through here all of the time, though, from Montreal to Boston or from Boston to Montreal. There is no cell service and no GPS. There are maybe two radio stations you can pick up at a time.

I can't imagine rural Wyoming nor Montana being even this good, as far as technology.

The reason I bring this up is that I heard a piece on the radio about cars with their speedometers based off of GPS, and the reporter was so keen on the idea, mentioning how GPS is available pretty much everywhere. Maybe in the city, but probably not even 100% in that case.

These AI cars and freight lorries will have to navigate with GPS, I imagine. If they come through here, there will be a t least one case of an AI vehicle crashing into farmer Dan's 250 year old barn, since none of the GPS maps show a building there, and most have a road cutting through that clearly does not. Maybe these vehicles are programmed not to crash into stuff, but if the GPS signal is nil and the maps are totally wrong, I don't see how it's not going to cause some sort of chaos with vehicles having no idea where they are supposed to go. Even one of the mainest of the main roads in northern VT (US Rte 2) becomes almost completely indistinguishable from the snow covered ground in spots during the winter.

We also have a little street here a lot of truckers take, because it shows as a short cut on the GPS. What the GPS doesn't explain is that there is a hairpin turn right after another hard turn on a 20% steep downgrade on a paved road that isn't really so much paved as potholed. I see at least one trucker jackknifed there every winter, and that's one of the roads that's marked on the map as a major through-way.

Probably the best way around this is to dictate to the AI vehicles that it is imperative for them to stay on specific roads, and avoid anything other than interstate highways in places like Vermont.



Petar Bogdanov said:


> Cars should be pretty damn good at dead reckoning, it's not like a cellphone where you don't have any clean sensors.
> 
> GPS should only be needed for the navigation aspect, anyway. It has a precision of 3 car lengths, or 9 car widths, not good enough for aiming a car.



Well, that's the topic we've been discussing. The sensors on a fright carrier driving across the country are not going to be clean. There are potholes full of mud, road salt, sand, bugs, etc. Have you ever seen the windshield of a lorry that drove through the countryside during warm weather? There are a lot of bugs, and there is no way any AI can dodge them.


----------



## narad (Mar 6, 2017)

bostjan said:


> If they come through here, there will be a t least one case of an AI vehicle crashing into farmer Dan's 250 year old barn, since none of the GPS maps show a building there, and most have a road cutting through that clearly does not. Maybe these vehicles are programmed not to crash into stuff, but if the GPS signal is nil and the maps are totally wrong, I don't see how it's not going to cause some sort of chaos with vehicles having no idea where they are supposed to go. Even one of the mainest of the main roads in northern VT (US Rte 2) becomes almost completely indistinguishable from the snow covered ground in spots during the winter.



Yea, they would not crash into a barn really in any circumstance, unless it was painted to mimic a road leading off into the horizon Roadrunner & Coyote style.

The GPS is a factor though as the GPS is currently one of the main troubleshooting methods for pinpointing current location within the road lanes when you can't see the dividers.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2017)

narad said:


> Yea, they would not crash into a barn really in any circumstance, unless it was painted to mimic a road leading off into the horizon Roadrunner & Coyote style.
> 
> The GPS is a factor though as the GPS is currently one of the main troubleshooting methods for pinpointing current location within the road lanes when you can't see the dividers.



Nobody would ever do such a nasty trick...












Ha ha, no, I know that they will ping off of walls using radar/sonar/whatever. My point was tied in with the earlier discussion about the senors getting clogged or dirty or whatever and malfunctioning, unless there was a good degree of redundancy.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Mar 6, 2017)

I think it's interesting that everyone is talking about the future of self driving cars while relying on current gen tech. You don't think they'll work on bettering gps and maps as the tech develops?

If there is to be the expectation that cars will need to travel through the middle of nowhere, then they will make it work. lol


----------



## narad (Mar 6, 2017)

I just think the tech is already much more developed than it's generally being treated in this thread. I mean, check this out:

[YOUTUBEVID]q1H312nEmiM[/YOUTUBEVID]

I've studied the vision system a bit and watched many of Nvidia's tech demos of that system before, but I didn't know the lidar was as far-reaching as it is.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 7, 2017)

Chokey Chicken said:


> I think it's interesting that everyone is talking about the future of self driving cars while relying on current gen tech. You don't think they'll work on bettering gps and maps as the tech develops?
> 
> If there is to be the expectation that cars will need to travel through the middle of nowhere, then they will make it work. lol



I don't think there's any confusion about that. As with anything else, there will be a phase one and a phase two. If the current phase is ready for beta testing, then there will be beta testing with whatever tech they currently have ready. As they hit snags, they'll continue to develop workarounds for the snags they hit for the next round.

My money is on the first round of these things running into some snags in the field. Why? Because it's always the case with revolutionary technologies like this. And, frankly, this thing could end up being 100x safer than a human behind the wheel, and some people will still be very vocally fearful of it, and there will be something-or-other that those fearful people glam onto in order to say "Look! See! We told you this was bad!"

As far as developing a better GPS. I really don't think that a GPS that will reliably function in the middle of nowhere will predate the release of self-driving AI. There's not really any other economic motivation for it. Saving a dozen hikers a year isn't going to pay for new advanced satellite networks. Self driving cars carrying expensive cargo will, but I highly doubt that point will sink in 100% until something happens to really make it sting a little. That is all I was saying before.

After whatever snags are worked out, though, this will come, and it will be more cost-effective and reliable (eventually) than paying a trucker to haul freight across the country.

Think about this, too: What happened to train engineers' jobs when the trucking industry supplanted the railroad industry? They never went away completely, but there sure are a lot fewer than there used to be. And what about Conestoga wagons? Those were hit hard by the railroad industry, and completely disappeared by the time trucking had taken hold of the commerce market. Maybe freight drones will make AI trucks obsolete? Who knows?


----------



## Petar Bogdanov (Mar 7, 2017)

bostjan said:


> Well, that's the topic we've been discussing. The sensors on a fright carrier driving across the country are not going to be clean. There are potholes full of mud, road salt, sand, bugs, etc. Have you ever seen the windshield of a lorry that drove through the countryside during warm weather? There are a lot of bugs, and there is no way any AI can dodge them.



If you drive a car with ABS, it already has 4 very clean, in terms of signal, speed sensors. So the speed detection and the redundancy are already built in. 

At their simplest, the sensors consist of a tone ring and a sealed hall effect sensor. They are pretty reliable, all things considered.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 7, 2017)

Petar Bogdanov said:


> If you drive a car with ABS, it already has 4 very clean, in terms of signal, speed sensors. So the speed detection and the redundancy are already built in.
> 
> At their simplest, the sensors consist of a tone ring and a sealed hall effect sensor. They are pretty reliable, all things considered.



That brings up a point, though, reinforcing my point. A traditional speedometer works by measuring RPM and multiplying by the circumference of the tyre to get linear speed. It doesn't work if the tyres are not getting 100% traction.


----------



## Petar Bogdanov (Mar 7, 2017)

Given that they have figured out cyclist and pedestrian detection already, somehow I think they will figure out traction loss, and driving on until they get a GPS signal.


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Mar 7, 2017)

Sure we are/have been great in alot of areas, but that does not mean we should not be critically reviewing some of our programs, reviewing success stories of other civilized nations, and revisiting laws and framework that were drawn up in the 1700's.

With any entity, be it person, business, or country - the ability to evaluate and adapt to changing evidence and circumstances breeds success.


----------



## Tortellini (Apr 22, 2017)

America is pretty great. It ain't free like people say it is, but it's still the only place I'll ever wanna live. 

Netherlands is next in line. No drug war, and no war on prostitution. Just freedom.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Apr 22, 2017)

Tortellini said:


> America is pretty great. It ain't free like people say it is, but it's still the only place I'll ever wanna live.
> 
> Netherlands is next in line. No drug war, and no war on prostitution. Just freedom.



Have you ever been here or followed our elections? 

We have semi-legal pot and a massive criminally exploited red light district. Hurray "freedom".


----------



## Tortellini (Apr 22, 2017)

UnderTheSign said:


> Have you ever been here or followed our elections?
> 
> We have semi-legal pot and a massive criminally exploited red light district. Hurray "freedom".


Didn't know that lol. I've never been to Europe.


----------

