Report Card for Donald Trump

[SomeGuy]

Quote:There's certainly potential for the labor force to expand.  The fact that they're out of the market, though, suggests they're not desperate for $10/hour jobs, let alone $10/day jobs.

I really don't think there's much of a market for $200 dress shirts produced in US sweat shops, which is around where today's $40 dress shirts would be if sewn in the US.  And that has upstream repercussions for those nice automated cotton mills, if people don't buy cotton shirts any more.

Now you're just being ridiculous.  Pressure to move production of goods consumed in the US back to the US is already occurring, and != setting up the exact same arrangements they presently have in Bangladesh except in rural Kentucky.  Automation (real automation, not the sort of IRobot stuff people here are fantasying about) is your friend here.  A modest initial rise in prices would not be the end of the world, particularly if it coincided with an expansion of spendable income on the bottom segment of the socioeconomic spectrum.

[Warren Dew]

(01-09-2017, 11:48 AM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:There's certainly potential for the labor force to expand.  The fact that they're out of the market, though, suggests they're not desperate for $10/hour jobs, let alone $10/day jobs.

I really don't think there's much of a market for $200 dress shirts produced in US sweat shops, which is around where today's $40 dress shirts would be if sewn in the US.  And that has upstream repercussions for those nice automated cotton mills, if people don't buy cotton shirts any more.

Now you're just being ridiculous.  Pressure to move production of goods consumed in the US back to the US is already occurring, and != setting up the exact same arrangements they presently have in Bangladesh except in rural Kentucky.  Automation (real automation, not the sort of IRobot stuff people here are fantasying about) is your friend here.  A modest initial rise in prices would not be the end of the world, particularly if it coincided with an expansion of spendable income on the bottom segment of the socioeconomic spectrum.

Assembly type jobs are not easily automated; that's why they're still done by people.  That's the kind of thing that's borderline "IRobot stuff".

I can remember when the situation I describe was the basic situation for certain categories of goods.  Protectionism against silk imports, for example, did not result in lots of silkworm farms being established in the US; it resulted in silk being virtually unavailable for those on ordinary incomes.

The "already occurring" pressure is market based and not dependent on protectionism.  I've already agreed that's a good thing.  Do you agree that protectionism can have bad effects?

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Assembly type jobs are not easily automated; that's why they're still done by people.  That's the kind of thing that's borderline "IRobot stuff".

I can remember when the situation I describe was the basic situation for certain categories of goods.  Protectionism against silk imports, for example, did not result in lots of silkworm farms being established in the US; it resulted in silk being virtually unavailable for those on ordinary incomes.

From the article I posted earlier, 

Quote:Where Mr. Winthrop relies on labor — the cutting and sewing of the sweatshirts, which he does in five factories in California and North Carolina — is where the costs jump up. That costs his company around $17 for a given sweatshirt; overseas, he says, it would cost $5.50.

I think you are vastly exaggerating the price pressures involved.

Quote:The "already occurring" pressure is market based and not dependent on protectionism.  I've already agreed that's a good thing.  Do you agree that protectionism can have bad effects?

I agree it could have bad effects.  I also think that "free trade" has bad effects.  That's life.

What I have less patience for are these sorts of all-or-nothing comparisons between totally free exchange of goods and services (which doesn't exist anywhere) and "Protectionism", the complete cessation of all imports, exports, capital and labor movements across borders, etc.  The whole thing exists on a spectrum, and all I would like to see is us tack back a little bit in the other direction.

[Warren Dew]

(01-09-2017, 04:34 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:Assembly type jobs are not easily automated; that's why they're still done by people.  That's the kind of thing that's borderline "IRobot stuff".

I can remember when the situation I describe was the basic situation for certain categories of goods.  Protectionism against silk imports, for example, did not result in lots of silkworm farms being established in the US; it resulted in silk being virtually unavailable for those on ordinary incomes.

From the article I posted earlier, 

Quote:Where Mr. Winthrop relies on labor — the cutting and sewing of the sweatshirts, which he does in five factories in California and North Carolina — is where the costs jump up. That costs his company around $17 for a given sweatshirt; overseas, he says, it would cost $5.50.

I think you are vastly exaggerating the price pressures involved.

Knit shirts like sweatshirts specifically require minimal cutting and sewing; they are the low labor end of the market and have been since programmable knitting machines were invented.  Dress shirts require several times as much labor input.

[SomeGuy]

You're right, dress shirts are IMPOSSIBLE to make in the Unite...  Wait, nevermind, here is a list of retailers selling American made dress shirts.  Looking around, you could probably get one as cheap as $120, if you're not looking for a custom shirt.  Here's some for $90 if you're racist and in to white shirts.  So, sure, maybe Warren Buffett could buy them, but God knows poor people would never spend that kind of money for clothes unless...

Oh my God, what if, in the distant future, we had, like, Professional Athletes, sign deals with clothing companies to endorse their products?  Do you think that might kick up sales? 

Please forgive the sarcasm, but the question of whether it was feasible to purchase American-Made dress shirts looked like something one could look up themselves...

[Warren Dew]

(01-09-2017, 10:07 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: You're right, dress shirts are IMPOSSIBLE to make in the Unite...  Wait, nevermind, here is a list of retailers selling American made dress shirts.  Looking around, you could probably get one as cheap as $120, if you're not looking for a custom shirt.  Here's some for $90 if you're racist and in to white shirts.  So, sure, maybe Warren Buffett could buy them, but God knows poor people would never spend that kind of money for clothes unless...

Speaking of straw men, I didn't say "IMPOSSIBLE", I said there wouldn't be much of a market.  Unless you can show the sales for these guys are anywhere near that of the major sellers, which I doubt very much, their mere existence doesn't say anything.

Checking out some of the sellers at the first link, the typical price is right around the $200 I mentioned.  Some are cheaper, some are more expensive, but again, it overall confirms my estimates.  Keep in mind the extreme low end likely suffer quality problems; certainly the one time I tried ordering US made shirts, that was the case, and I'm suspicious of any seller that doesn't state the thread count in their cotton.

And when you are replacing half a dozen shirts a year, which is typical for cotton dress shirts if you wear them on a daily basis and replace them when they start getting worn, even $90 a shirt adds up.

Quote:Oh my God, what if, in the distant future, we had, like, Professional Athletes, sign deals with clothing companies to endorse their products?  Do you think that might kick up sales? 

No, I don't, not when the price is 5 times as much.  Maybe if it were a 4% premium instead of a 400% premium.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Speaking of straw men, I didn't say "IMPOSSIBLE", I said there wouldn't be much of a market.  Unless you can show the sales for these guys are anywhere near that of the major sellers, which I doubt very much, their mere existence doesn't say anything.

Checking out some of the sellers at the first link, the typical price is right around the $200 I mentioned.  Some are cheaper, some are more expensive, but again, it overall confirms my estimates.  Keep in mind the extreme low end likely suffer quality problems; certainly the one time I tried ordering US made shirts, that was the case, and I'm suspicious of any seller that doesn't state the thread count in their cotton.

And when you are replacing half a dozen shirts a year, which is typical for cotton dress shirts if you wear them on a daily basis and replace them when they start getting worn, even $90 a shirt adds up.

Poor low thread count strawmen!

*shrugs*

I am willing to be that it wouldn't be the end of the world.  Dress shirts are declining as need-to-have for work on a daily basis anyways, and many of the industries where they are still basically mandatory probably spend at least that much on shirts, anyways.  Men's fashions change (price issues for fabric reduced the demand for waistcoats, once, too).  I am sure the markets would adjust.  Prices might go as US manufacturers expand, demand may go down as more workplaces go casual, etc.  

Quote:No, I don't, not when the price is 5 times as much.  Maybe if it were a 4% premium instead of a 400% premium.

Explain Air Jordans.  I also question the quality differences between a $20 Shirt from Macy's and a $90 shirt from some US manufacturer.

[Warren Dew]

(01-10-2017, 10:17 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: I am willing to be that it wouldn't be the end of the world.  Dress shirts are declining as need-to-have for work on a daily basis anyways, and many of the industries where they are still basically mandatory probably spend at least that much on shirts, anyways.

I've never been a fan of the "everything not mandatory is forbidden" school of policy.  Dress shirts are not mandatory where I work, but most of the men wear

Quote:Explain Air Jordans.  I also question the quality differences between a $20 Shirt from Macy's and a $90 shirt from some US manufacturer.

You'll have to explain Air Jordans, whatever they are.  I haven't tried $20 shirts from Macy's, but based on personal experience, I know that $40 shirts sewn overseas are comparable to $200 shirts made domestically, and far superior to $90 domestic shirts.

Edit: as someone (pbrower?) pointed out, bringing back manufacturing jobs is a generally losing proposition with limited upside, anyway. A better path is to exploit comparative advantages that we actually do have, as with the proposed Alibaba deal.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:I've never been a fan of the "everything not mandatory is forbidden" school of policy.  Dress shirts are not mandatory where I work, but most of the men wear 

I never said anything about "forbidden".  Wear what you can afford.  If the cost of supporting American industry as opposed to groups of small children in SE Asia is that you decide to start wearing polo shirts, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

Quote:You'll have to explain Air Jordans, whatever they are.

Ludicrously expensive high-top sneakers popular starting in the 80s?

Quote:I haven't tried $20 shirts from Macy's, but based on personal experience, I know that $40 shirts sewn overseas are comparable to $200 shirts made domestically, and far superior to $90 domestic shirts.

There are costs in that $40 shirt that are not reflected in that price tag.  This election was about one of them.  There are others.

Quote:Edit: as someone (pbrower?) pointed out, bringing back manufacturing jobs is a generally losing proposition with limited upside, anyway.

I question his expertise in this regard.  Similarly, I question the claim itself.  Most of the richest countries in the world, barring a couple of entrepots and oil-producing countries, got there and stayed there through manufacturing, some of them presently with levels of automation and industrial employment higher than our own.  Tariffs and import-substitution were a critical component of almost all developed countries' move up the ladder, including our own.  Free trade is something most countries embrace at the top of their development, and financialization and deindustrialization has generally followed in their wake (late Victorian Britain, 18th century Holland, etc.).  The claims of new jobs to replace the supposed lower-value added jobs we shed over the last 40 years are wearing a little thin.  

Quote:A better path is to exploit comparative advantages that we actually do have, as with the proposed Alibaba deal.

 
Funnily enough, China has done quite well implementing mercantilist practices for their market, it's how they got to where they are now (employing mercantilism while the reigning hegemon practices free trade worked well for the US in the 19th and early 20th century, too).  You mention comparative advantage, you might want to look up what David Ricardo actually said concerning situations where one trading partner has a consistent advantage in all or most goods, what he thought that might do to the other country, and the ridiculous thing that he thought would prevent it.

[Mikebert]

(01-10-2017, 11:50 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: You mention comparative advantage, you might want to look up what David Ricardo actually said concerning situations where one trading partner has a consistent advantage in all or most goods, what he thought that might do to the other country, and the ridiculous thing that he thought would prevent it.

Can you provide a link.  My understanding of Ricardo what that his analysis only held when factors of production did not move between countries--which actually was the case then. Can you guess why that was so?

[SomeGuy]

Mike,

From chapter 7 of On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation:

Quote:It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances, the wine and the cloth should both be made in Portugal, and therefore that the capital and labour of England employed in making cloth, should be removed to Portugal for that purpose. In that case, the relative value of these commodities would be regulated by the same principle, as if one were the produce of Yorkshire, and the other of London: and in every other case, if capital freely flowed towards those countries where it could be most profitably employed, there could be no difference in the rate of profit, and no other difference in the real or labour price of commodities, than the additional quantity of labour required to convey them to the various markets where they were to be sold.
7.19
Experience, however, shews, that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connexions, and intrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations.

Clearly, these feelings no longer apply.  The telecommunications industry, which made it unnecessary to actually leave the country permanently in order to communicate effectively with far flung holdings, the modern corporation, and the liberal regime (backed up by the US military) instituted after WWII and elaborated since have undermined those considerations, and created the present situation.

There are additional criticism of Ricardian advantage beyond the mobility (or lack thereof) of capital, including externalities, trade in assets and liabilities (whose production costs are effectively zero), factors of production (including laborers and their skills) not being perfectly mobile domestically, etc.

[David Horn]

(01-08-2017, 07:16 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: It's like a religious thing with you, isn't it?  That link isn't for something in production, it's the wikipedia page of a concept that has more sources from science fiction going back decades than it does current projects.  You keep asserting that "the destructive part" MUST "consistently outpace the creative part", but you never prove why that must be so.  All you do is wave your hands, and completely ignore the long history of those claims, their persistent failure in the past, and the absence of any real evidence in support of why IT's DIFFERENT THIS TIME.

You're young, so you haven't actually witnessed the change that has already happened. Industrial robots were experimental in the 1980s; now they're ubiquitous. Something newer? How about the near collapse of bricks-and-mortar retailing. Change is never obvious until it happens.

Smart machines are hard, but they become very viable if conditions are right. Right now, or sometime after January 20th at least, our political establishment will empower corporations by gutting the regulatory regime, lowering their taxes and putting people like Carl Icahn in the drivers seat. Add money to motivation and subtract any viable opposition. You do the math.

SomeGuy Wrote:Atomic energy was supposed to be "too cheap to meter", and prototypes were built of atomic cars, atomic airplanes, etc.?  What happened there? We landed people on the Moon in 1969, when did we land people on Mars?  The Space Shuttle was supposed to make travel to orbit as cheap and convenient as jet airplane ride?  How did that work out?  DARPA built a walking robot for the US Army for use in Vietnam, and they're still playing around with the idea now.

Safety issues are what killed atomic power: Chernobyl, The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island. Contrary to your opinion, the Space Shuttle was always a kludge and Mars was always a wet dream. DARPA may not have gotten robots right then, but the internet has certainly been a success.

So I'm betting on an automaton wave that will either be beaten back by or cheered-on by the political environment. It can go either way.

SomeGuy Wrote:Just because something can be imagined doesn't mean it can be built.  Just because it can be built doesn't mean it is feasible to use.  Just because it can be used doesn't mean it will be cost-effective to do so compared to the alternatives.  

Full automation is inherently viable. We know we can do it. Automation has been successful everywhere it's been tried. And replacing humans with all their needs and foibles is certainly cost-effective.

It's already happening.

SomeGuy Wrote:You have already acknowledged that this is not an imminent thing, need I quote you to nail you down on that subject?  Given this, what you are instead making is a long-term prediction on technological trends, several decades out.  Do you have any idea what the history of that sort of thing looks like?  You should check out Victorian predictions of the 20th century, mid-century depictions of the early 21th century.  Where are the jet packs, the space colonies, the food pills?  Where was the Internet in any of their predictions?  The very fact that people here at the height of a tech boom are converging on one vision of what the future a few decades out looks like is a pretty solid indicator that that isn't how it is going to be.

Its a huge undertaking, so setting a timeline is hard, but its a lot more sensible than flying cars or jet packs, which never made sense at any level but the emotional. Keep utility at the forefront. Is automation utile? Yes. And asking about the Internet is a bit dumb, since DARPA knew exactly what it was doing. It only lacked the knowledge of how far technology could go in so short a time.

SomeGuy Wrote:Do you actually have a real response to any of these issues I raised as to consumer preference, energy usage, relative labor costs, or the like, or is all you can manage a plaintive "THE MACHINES WILL TAKE OVER BECAUSE SCIENCE!"?

Who said machines will take over? I doubt any of us will be around if and when machine become prescient. This isn't about machines as masters. Its about masters maintaining their mastery through machines they control.

Hoi polio has a small window to get in front of this and stake a claim to the benefits, but its certainly not happening at the moment.

[David Horn]

(01-09-2017, 09:09 AM)SomeGuy Wrote: Warren,

It was me, and the answer is, probably a mixture of both.  Given the labor force participation rate, and the regional disparities in job creation, there is probably more slack in the labor market than you think, and other inflationary pressures are so low in the economy right now that a modest rise in inflation wouldn't hurt.

Butting-in: I agree that the labor force is actually a lot looser than it appears in the data.  So what?  Capitalism is built on maximizing profits, and that may not require anything approaching full employment now or in the future.  If unit cost drops dramatically faster than lost sales, even lower volumes may be a net plus.  Who in the ownership class really cares that people are struggling to get by?  It's not their problem, or so most of them believe.  Ask Carl Icahn, DJT's Special Advisor on Regulatory Reform.

[SomeGuy]

You again?

Quote:You're young, so you haven't actually witnessed the change that has already happened. Industrial robots were experimental in the 1980s; now they're ubiquitous.

Industrial robots had been on the market since 1956.  They started hitting high-growth in the 70s.  Try again.

Quote:How about the near collapse of bricks-and-mortar retailing.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  The industry is definitely going through a period of contraction after rapid buildout in the 90s and 2000s, but I doubt very seriously that in the future EVERYTHING will come from Amazon or its nearest equivalent.

Quote:Change is never obvious until it happens.

Perhaps later you regale me with tales of the Wright Brother's first flight or the execution of Charles I.  Maybe start with how in God's name bellbottoms ever sounded like a good idea.  Just because things have changed in the past does not mean your claim has been proven. Change != all jobs everywhere will vanish in the near-future.

Quote:Smart machines are hard, but they become very viable if conditions are right.

Hand-waving.

Quote:Right now, or sometime after January 20th at least, our political establishment will empower corporations by gutting the regulatory regime, lowering their taxes and putting people like Carl Icahn in the drivers seat. Add money to motivation and subtract any viable opposition. You do the math.

As I pointed out in the other thread, it is difficult to do math without numbers.  You'd think as an "engineer" you'd know that.

Quote:Safety issues are what killed atomic power: Chernobyl, The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island. Contrary to your opinion, the Space Shuttle was always a kludge and Mars was always a wet dream. DARPA may not have gotten robots right then, but the internet has certainly been a success.

And yet we CAN build atomic power plants.  We COULD fly to Mars.  We DID build the Space Shuttle.  And yet the mere fact that these things were possible was not sufficient to fulfill every grandiose claim claim ever made about them.  The existence of all these other issues is exactly the sort of thing I have been pointing out as qualifying your geeking out over the automation thing.

Were you this worked up when the horse-and-buggy industry finally died?

Quote:Full automation is inherently viable.

Full automation of what?  Everything?  Is a bot writing these posts of yours?

Quote:We know we can do it.

What, everything?  Define "know".  Please give me an example of "everything automated".

Quote:And replacing humans with all their needs and foibles is certainly cost-effective.

Do machines not have needs?  Foibles?  Note that I am not asking if they have the same needs, but do they not have needs of their own?  Do these machines install themselves?  Service themselves (as in actually fix themselves/replace themselves when they break, provide their own power, raw materials, etc.)?  Decide what and how many things they are going to build?

Quote:Its a huge undertaking, so setting a timeline is hard, but its a lot more sensible than flying cars or jet packs, which never made sense at any level but the emotional. Keep utility at the forefront. Is automation utile? Yes. And asking about the Internet is a bit dumb, since DARPA knew exactly what it was doing. It only lacked the knowledge of how far technology could go in so short a time.

Meterless power would have been useful, too.  Doesn't mean it happened.

Quote:Who said machines will take over? I doubt any of us will be around if and when machine become prescient. This isn't about machines as masters. Its about masters maintaining their mastery through machines they control. 

Hoi polio has a small window to get in front of this and stake a claim to the benefits, but its certainly not happening at the moment.

So, no, you don't have any comments on "consumer preference, energy usage, relative labor costs, or the like", just a bunch of handwaving.  Got it.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:Butting-in: I agree that the labor force is actually a lot looser than it appears in the data.  So what?  Capitalism is built on maximizing profits, and that may not require anything approaching full employment now or in the future.  If unit cost drops dramatically faster than lost sales, even lower volumes may be a net plus.  Who in the ownership class really cares that people are struggling to get by?  It's not their problem, or so most of them believe.  Ask Carl Icahn, DJT's Special Advisor on Regulatory Reform.

Which is precisely why I think that increased infrastructure spending and adjustments in trade and immigration policy could do some good.  If you want to try and shove a basic income in there somewhere, fine by me.

[Eric the Green]

Trump is much more likely to be able to get his most harmful policies adopted (because the Republicans support those) than his more helpful ideas like trade adjustments and infrastructure spending.

[SomeGuy]

(01-10-2017, 05:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump is much more likely to be able to get his most harmful policies adopted (because the Republicans support those) than his more helpful ideas like trade adjustments and infrastructure spending.

That is actually a concern of mine.  Granted, we don't necessarily agree on the undesirability of ALL traditional Republican policies, but still, I share at least some of your concerns.

[pbrower2a]

Replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts -- something inadequate when a Republican proposed it.

If you don't save enough, then you still die. All that you do is buy a little time. What a cruel plan!

Every little joy in life for the next four years will be tainted. The best in life will be like having a lobster dinner in the presence of sewer smell.

[David Horn]

This will be my last reply to this, since the number of stripes is out of control.

(01-10-2017, 05:18 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: You again?

... said the one posting to every thread.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:You're young, so you haven't actually witnessed the change that has already happened. Industrial robots were experimental in the 1980s; now they're ubiquitous.

Industrial robots had been on the market since 1956.  They started hitting high-growth in the 70s.  Try again.

The PUMA was the first actual robot to be marginally useful, and just barely at that. That was 1983, as your own link indicates. I actually remember the early applications -- primarily fixed welding.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:How about the near collapse of bricks-and-mortar retailing.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  The industry is definitely going through a period of contraction after rapid buildout in the 90s and 2000s, but I doubt very seriously that in the future EVERYTHING will come from Amazon or its nearest equivalent.

No, but the landscape will certainly change. Millennials use online ordering far more than I would, but it's their/your world now. My DIL orders her groceries online, and just does a drive-by pickup. My son is worse. He even orders toilet paper from Amazon, because he can get it delivered for free.

Don't discount the natural human tendency to do as little as possible to complete undesirable tasks.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Change is never obvious until it happens.

Perhaps later you regale me with tales of the Wright Brother's first flight or the execution of Charles I.  Maybe start with how in God's name bellbottoms ever sounded like a good idea.  Just because things have changed in the past does not mean your claim has been proven. Change != all jobs everywhere will vanish in the near-future.

Fixed that. No, the near future is not going to kill all jobs, unless you have a very long view of the term 'near'. If fact, I'll be willing to bet that the process is both iterative and meandering. People will move from job to job until they can't adjust to the rate of change. As labor fallout grows, solutions to the "growing idle class" will be tried until something works. That takes time. How much? I don't claim to know, but several decades seems to be a minimum. Humans have to adjust mentally to the change before it can be accepted.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Smart machines are hard, but they become very viable if conditions are right.

Hand-waving.

The motivation to create machines is directly proportional to the expected cost/benefit ratio. The ability to create them is tied more to cost. iPads to order in a restaurant, and automated carts to deliver the food (in trade for avoiding tips) might fly easily. Apparently, Level 5 automated cars (a much more ambitious project) will also fly, though it should be less likely.

Why is any of this surprising?

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Right now, or sometime after January 20th at least, our political establishment will empower corporations by gutting the regulatory regime, lowering their taxes and putting people like Carl Icahn in the drivers seat. Add money to motivation and subtract any viable opposition. You do the math.

As I pointed out in the other thread, it is difficult to do math without numbers.  You'd think as an "engineer" you'd know that.

TBD Stay tuned. The biggest variable: The Donald. I still can't decide what he thinks he's doing, so what he will actually do is still a known unknown.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Safety issues are what killed atomic power: Chernobyl, The China Syndrome and Three Mile Island. Contrary to your opinion, the Space Shuttle was always a kludge and Mars was always a wet dream. DARPA may not have gotten robots right then, but the internet has certainly been a success.

And yet we CAN build atomic power plants.  We COULD fly to Mars.  We DID build the Space Shuttle.  And yet the mere fact that these things were possible was not sufficient to fulfill every grandiose claim ever made about them.  The existence of all these other issues is exactly the sort of thing I have been pointing out as qualifying your geeking out over the automation thing.

Were you this worked up when the horse-and-buggy industry finally died?

Grandiose claims tend to be the product of people with an agenda. If I run Lockheed-Martin or Boeing, building space toys will get lots of positive press if I can help it. I look for situations that can be justified on cost/benefit terms. Other cases certainly will be pursued, and some that should won't. We're humans; we're quirky.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Full automation is inherently viable.

Full automation of what?  Everything?  Is a bot writing these posts of yours?

Yes, assuming enough time and the desire to get there, we can fully automate everything. I doubt we will, but we can ... eventually.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:We know we can do it.

What, everything?  Define "know".  Please give me an example of "everything automated".

Writing poetry. Being life companions. Neither is in the cards at the moment, or even desirable at this point. So what? Both can happen if that make sense to future generations.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:And replacing humans with all their needs and foibles is certainly cost-effective.

Do machines not have needs?  Foibles?  Note that I am not asking if they have the same needs, but do they not have needs of their own?  Do these machines install themselves?  Service themselves (as in actually fix themselves/replace themselves when they break, provide their own power, raw materials, etc.)?  Decide what and how many things they are going to build?

Machines have needs, but they can be met without human intervention. That was my point about self-replicating machines.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Its a huge undertaking, so setting a timeline is hard, but its a lot more sensible than flying cars or jet packs, which never made sense at any level but the emotional. Keep utility at the forefront. Is automation utile? Yes. And asking about the Internet is a bit dumb, since DARPA knew exactly what it was doing. It only lacked the knowledge of how far technology could go in so short a time.

Meterless power would have been useful, too.  Doesn't mean it happened.

Nor does it mean it won't in the future. Right now, we're still highly capitalistic. If that changes, so will the motivation to charge for things that should be free. Note: power may not be one of those. Power is not available in unlimited quantities, so some limiting factor will always be required.

SomeGuy Wrote:

David Horn Wrote:Who said machines will take over? I doubt any of us will be around if and when machine become prescient. This isn't about machines as masters. Its about masters maintaining their mastery through machines they control. 

Hoi polio has a small window to get in front of this and stake a claim to the benefits, but it's certainly not happening at the moment.

So, no, you don't have any comments on "consumer preference, energy usage, relative labor costs, or the like", just a bunch of handwaving.  Got it.

How do any of those issues affect this? Consumer preference is unaffected by who of what delivers the products and services that are preferred. I mentioned energy usage in my last comment, and that will be a factor, but it will be a factor regardless. And relative labor costs are the entire point. When the need for human intervention drops to zero (or close to it), labor by humans becomes nonviable. We may still elect to maintain some specialized human tasks ... or not, but that decision will not be based on cost.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:This will be my last reply to this, since the number of stripes is out of control.

Do what you want.  I mean, you know, you don't have to do it line by line just because I am.

Quote:... said the one posting to every thread.

I am posting in substantially fewer threads than you are.  There is a whole slew of group-signaling... I mean, political threads that I simply don't bother with.

Quote:The PUMA was the first actual robot to be marginally useful, and just barely at that. That was 1983, as your own link indicates. I actually remember the early applications -- primarily fixed welding.

Now you're just making things up.  The first Unimation robots went out to GE in 1961, and the PUMA was made in 1978.  And yet the global number of manufacturing workers has not shrunk, has it?  The US numbers peaked in 1979, but plateaued for 20 years, and didn't start to tumble until 2000, which I maintain had much more to do with trade policy than it did automation.  It is presently increasing.  The global number of manufacturing workers didn't shrink during this period either.  In any event, the use of machines to boost human productivity in manufacturing has been going on for at least 200 years, i

Quote:No, but the landscape will certainly change.

Things have a tendency to change.  Change still doesn't mean the inevitable loss of all jobs to robots.

Quote:Millennials use online ordering far more than I would, but it's their/your world now. My DIL orders her groceries online, and just does a drive-by pickup. My son is worse. He even orders toilet paper from Amazon, because he can get it delivered for free. 

What does this have to do what we are talking about?  The plural of anecdote is not data!

Quote:Don't discount the natural human tendency to do as little as possible to complete undesirable tasks.

That's the story of my life, particularly the part in the Army and at school.  While we're exchanging anecdotes, I still felt, by the end of my 20s, an almost overwhelming need to find employment, even when I had other sources of income (Hi, Mom!  Uncle Sam. <salutes lazily>).  Don't underestimate the human ability to find shit for themselves and other people to do, either.

Quote:Fixed that. No, the near future is not going to kill all jobs, unless you have a very long view of the term 'near'. If fact, I'll be willing to bet that the process is both iterative and meandering. People will move from job to job until they can't adjust to the rate of change. As labor fallout grows, solutions to the "growing idle class" will be tried until something works. That takes time. How much? I don't claim to know, but several decades seems to be a minimum. Humans have to adjust mentally to the change before it can be accepted.

So, you do realize this thread is called "Report Card for Donald Trump", right?  My measuring sticks for Donald Trump, which included trade policy and infrastructure investment, were talking about near-term policy changes to improve things in the here and now.  So what does this hypothetical situation of permanent joblessness several decades in the future (which you have merely asserted, not demonstrated) have to do with what I originally said?

Quote:The motivation to create machines is directly proportional to the expected cost/benefit ratio.

Yes, which includes weighing the price of them (purchase, installation, maintenance, energy costs, etc.) against the price of alternatives.

Quote:iPads to order in a restaurant, and automated carts to deliver the food (in trade for avoiding tips) might fly easily.

Which they'll deliver from the robot kitchen, which means we're basically talking TV Dinners.  How much would pay you to eat one of those, and how often do you think you would go?  The answer better be "a lot" to both, otherwise I fail to see how that would pay for itself.

Quote:Apparently, Level 5 automated cars (a much more ambitious project) will also fly, though it should be less likely.

Oh good, flying cars at last!  How long have those been on the docket for?

Quote:Why is any of this surprising?

Is what surprising?  That an aging boomer geek is still convinced that the future is going to look like the Jetsons?

Not all that surprising, actually.

Quote:TBD Stay tuned. The biggest variable: The Donald. I still can't decide what he thinks he's doing, so what he will actually do is still a known unknown.

So we're switching from the (not near) future back to the present?  That's cool, but it makes me wonder what the point of the rest of this was.

Quote:Grandiose claims tend to be the product of people with an agenda.

Agendas like the desire not to deal with the demands of roughly half the electorate by fixating on a future that's been 50 years away for 50 years now?

Quote:If I run Lockheed-Martin or Boeing, building space toys will get lots of positive press if I can help it.

And if you're running a company that sells software/software services that has been hit with a federal antitrust suit/civil class action suit for suppressing wages you distract attention by pointing at... what do you think?

Quote:Yes, assuming enough time and the desire to get there, we can fully automate everything. I doubt we will, but we can ... eventually.

Are you able to perceive that this is a statement of faith and not an argument?

Quote:Writing poetry. Being life companions. Neither is in the cards at the moment, or even desirable at this point. So what? Both can happen if that make sense to future generations.

How in God's name is this a response to this:

YOU: We know we can do it.
ME: What, everything?  Define "know".  Please give me an example of "everything automated".

Quote:Machines have needs, but they can be met without human intervention. 

Can they?  You're begging the question again.

Quote:Nor does it mean it won't in the future. 

It doesn't mean it will, either.  Kind of like the complete automation of everything.

Quote:Right now, we're still highly capitalistic. If that changes, so will the motivation to charge for things that should be free. Note: power may not be one of those. Power is not available in unlimited quantities, so some limiting factor will always be required.

So, you're saying the power to, well, power all of these robots may not exist in the unlimited quantities needed to make them costless compared to human beings whom you would presumably still have to feed whether they were doing anything useful or not?

Quote:Consumer preference is unaffected by who of what delivers the products and services that are preferred.

Which is why all the richest people eat manufactured foods and only poor people still eat things grown, crafted, and/or cooked by hand.  Got it.

Quote:I mentioned energy usage in my last comment, and that will be a factor, but it will be a factor regardless.

And you don't think that factor may affect the relative costs of using one versus the other?  Why?

Quote:And relative labor costs are the entire point.And relative labor costs are the entire point.

If the demand (for human labor) falls faster than the supply, the price of human labor will fall, which affects the price of it, which affects the demand, etc.  Since you've already acknowledged that these machines will depend on resources (energy, materials, labor costs (the value of the robot's time, if nothing else),etc.) that are not limitless, they will still have a price to their use, which may or may not be lower than that of a human equivalent.  

Quote:When the need for human intervention drops to zero (or close to it), labor by humans becomes nonviable.

Circular reasoning.

Quote:We may still elect to maintain some specialized human tasks ... or not, but that decision will not be based on cost.

No, you gonna back up that assertion or just run through the catechism again?