Are People Really Too Stupid To Take Care Of Themselves?

[angelatc]

https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forced-into-debt-worked-past-exhaustion-left-with-nothing/

^^ - story of truck drivers in California who are pretty much indentured servants, thanks to California's greenie weenies.

Short version of the story: California passed a law that made almost all older semi trucks illegal. So the owner-operators, who had made a good living for years hauling containers from ports to warehouses suddenly couldn't use their own equipment.

Their employers, the trucking companies, stepped in. They offered to finance shiny new trucks on behalf of the drivers who didn't earn enough to get financing. Surprise - it's a shoddy rent-to-own scheme that about 40% of the drivers lose out on. When said drivers can't make a payment, they lose the truck and all the equity they'd paid into it.

There's other stuff to, like companies forcing them to work longer-than-legal hours and keep fake logs, classifying them as contractors rather than employees, etc, but it's all part and parcel to the original question.

I understand getting duped into a bad contract. But here's an example from the article:

Deductions from pay from QTS, INC., on Feb. 17, 2012

Initial amount $854.13
Insurance <$90>
Lease <$250>
Tires <$35>
Registration <$65>
Gas <$405.46>
Remaining amount $0.67

Why on God's green Earth would anyone keep working 60+ hours a week to bring home .67 when you could do better mowing lawns or washing dishes?

The reason I ask is that one of the foundations of Libertarian philosophy is that we don't need labor laws and minimum wages because people won't bother to work if they're not making money. And yet...here's this guy.

[Danke]

We know the answer is less government, but until that happens, why are you so against unions?

[Anti Federalist]

Short answer, yes.

Now, based on the expense report you posted, I'm guessing that many of those deductions are one time only.


The reason I ask is that one of the foundations of Libertarian philosophy is that we don't need labor laws and minimum wages because people won't bother to work if they're not making money. And yet...here's this guy.

And this is how you get unions.


These port truckers -- many of them poor immigrants who speak little English -- are responsible for moving almost half of the nation’s container imports out of Los Angeles’ ports. They don't deliver goods to stores. Instead they drive them short distances to warehouses and rail yards, one small step on their journey to a store near you.

And this is why large corporations love illegal immigration.

Hell, most idiot AmeriKunts can't balance a checkbook (what's that?) or do simple finances to figure out when they are getting the shaft.

7 year car loans?

15% credit card interest?

What the fuck...


In October 2008, that changed dramatically in southern California, home of the nation’s busiest ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach. State officials, fed up with deadly diesel fumes from 16,000 outdated trucks, ordered the entire fleet replaced with new, cleaner rigs.

Suddenly, this obscure but critical collection of trucking companies faced a $2.5 billion crossroads unlike anything experienced at other U.S. ports.

Instead of digging into their own pockets to undo the environmental mess they helped create, the companies found a way to push the cost onto individual drivers, who are paid by the number and kinds of containers they move, not by the hour.

Deadly...LOL.

Well, I wonder WTF these idiots thought was going to happen.

And who pays the price anyways, all of us.

[Swordsmyth]

https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/news/rigged-forced-into-debt-worked-past-exhaustion-left-with-nothing/

^^ - story of truck drivers in California who are pretty much indentured servants, thanks to California's greenie weenies.

Short version of the story: California passed a law that made almost all older semi trucks illegal. So the owner-operators, who had made a good living for years hauling containers from ports to warehouses suddenly couldn't use their own equipment.

Their employers, the trucking companies, stepped in. They offered to finance shiny new trucks on behalf of the drivers who didn't earn enough to get financing. Surprise - it's a shoddy rent-to-own scheme that about 40% of the drivers lose out on. When said drivers can't make a payment, they lose the truck and all the equity they'd paid into it.

There's other stuff to, like companies forcing them to work longer-than-legal hours and keep fake logs, classifying them as contractors rather than employees, etc, but it's all part and parcel to the original question.

I understand getting duped into a bad contract. But here's an example from the article:

Deductions from pay from QTS, INC., on Feb. 17, 2012

Initial amount $854.13
Insurance <$90>
Lease <$250>
Tires <$35>
Registration <$65>
Gas <$405.46>
Remaining amount $0.67

Why on God's green Earth would anyone keep working 60+ hours a week to bring home .67 when you could do better mowing lawns or washing dishes?

The reason I ask is that one of the foundations of Libertarian philosophy is that we don't need labor laws and minimum wages because people won't bother to work if they're not making money. And yet...here's this guy.

Some people are stupid, the only thing that will teach them not to be is HARD KNOCKS, when big brother steps in and "protects" them, they stay stupid forever, which is just how the governors want them.

If the stupid fail too horribly then helping them is the job of private charity.

[Anti Federalist]

We know the answer is less government, but until that happens, why are you so against unions?

I was just saying the same thing.

As long as there is no government collusion either with labor or management, I have no issues with unions at all.

Free assembly.

In a perfect world the Teamsters would be providing the legal counsel and representation to make make sure their members were not signing a contract that would shaft them.

[Anti Federalist]

Moot point anyways...won't be any truckers in another 20 years or so.

[Swordsmyth]

We know the answer is less government, but until that happens, why are you so against unions?
Unions are a complicated issue, there is nothing wrong with the basic idea, but when they "Siamese twin" themselves to communism and the demoncrats and then conspire with big brother to force everyone to join then they become an enemy of freedom.

[Danke]

I was just saying the same thing.

As long as there is no government collusion either with labor or management, I have no issues with unions at all.

Free assembly.

In a perfect world the Teamsters would be providing the legal counsel and representation to make make sure their members were not signing a contract that would shaft them.

In my industry, unions sprang up because of safety ( mail carrier pilots dying left and right). And have been at the forefront ever since to make air travel as safe as it is today. We can't bury mistakes. Every work rule and accident reduction equipment did not come from the bean counters in management. It was fought for, and a lot of worker's lives were ruined in the process.

[Danke]

Unions are a complicated issue, there is nothing wrong with the basic idea, but when they "Siamese twin" themselves to communism and the demoncrats and then conspire with big brother to force everyone to join then they become an enemy of freedom.

Ya, my union doesn't even call itself a "union", but an "Association."

most of us hate what you are getting at, but realize with our current setup, we need to organize.

[Anti Federalist]

In my industry, unions sprang up because of safety ( mail carrier pilots dying left and right). And have been at the forefront ever since to make air travel as safe as it is today. We can't bury mistakes. Every work rule and accident reduction equipment did not come from the bean counters in management. It was fought for, and a lot of worker's lives were ruined in the process.

See, in the maritime world, it has been, not opposite, but different.

Unions were more for wage and benefit negotiations than safety.

Seafaring has always been dangerous and it was just accepted.

The bean counters and lawyers saw what was happening in the aviation field and applied that safety culture here, in order to drive down costs and "Morris Bart" lawsuits.

Now they have gotten so ridiculous that it almost impossible to do the job.

Also, mostly moot points...we are as dead as dodos as the truckers are.

[Anti Federalist]

Ya, my union doesn't even call itself a "union", but an "Association."

most of us hate what you are getting at, but realize with our current setup, we need to organize.

Bingo!!!

I have been pushing for years for the formation of a maritime association of mariners, if only to push back against some of the flood of rules and edicts and fatwas.

[Danke]

See, in the maritime world, it has been, not opposite, but different.

Unions were more for wage and benefit negotiations than safety.

Seafaring has always been dangerous and it was just accepted.

The bean counters and lawyers saw what was happening in the aviation field and applied that safety culture here, in order to drive down costs and "Morris Bart" lawsuits.

Now they have gotten so ridiculous that it almost impossible to do the job.

Also, mostly moot points...we are as dead as dodos as the truckers are.


"We" as in boats and trucks?

[Danke]

Bingo!!!

I have been pushing for years for the formation of a maritime association of mariners, if only to push back against some of the flood of rules and edicts and fatwas.

There are few in my industry that I would "push against."

But they do limit my salary. But I realize if we give an inch, management will take a mile. (As in, there could be some relaxation in some areas agreeable to me, but the group said no...slippery slop, etc.)

[angelatc]

We know the answer is less government, but until that happens, why are you so against unions?

Because they only make the problem worse.

[angelatc]

Ya, my union doesn't even call itself a "union", but an "Association."

most of us hate what you are getting at, but realize with our current setup, we need to organize.

Why don't you just find another job? Your employer isn't running a democracy.

[Swordsmyth]

Why don't you just find another job? Your employer isn't running a democracy.
While I tend to be suspicious of unions (see my response to Danke above) That is a bit callous, especially in today's job market.
And there is no reason that the basic idea of unions is inherently wrong, if an employer treats his workers fairly he should not have to worry about them.

Let me guess, you are in management right?

[Anti Federalist]

"We" as in boats and trucks?

You too...you're nuts if you think it's not gonna happen.

[The Northbreather]

TV and beer money is all they require until one day your heart pops...

It's a great formula

[Anti Federalist]

There are few in my industry that I would "push against."

There are plenty I would push back against, especially safety rules that end up making you less safe, and I could list at least 50 right off the top of my head.

[Anti Federalist]

Why don't you just find another job? Your employer isn't running a democracy.

Because in many cases it is industry wide. In danke's case, if his current airline is doing something unsafe, or something's peeving him off, he quits and goes elsewhere, more than likely it will be happening at his new employer as well.

Do that enough and you'll get blackballed and won't work anywhere.

So get another job you say.

Well that's all well and good if you have unskilled labor to offer.

People like Danke, people like me, we have spent our entire lives building a skill set that is precisely honed to accomplish one single complex task.

We have invested years in training, practice, education and on the job skill building to do that job over and over again, safely and efficiently.

It's sunk capital, just the same as your storefront building is. And just imagine how rightly pissed off you would be if the government, backed by powerful business interests, came along and changed the zoning on your property, effectively putting you out business and stealing a large chunk of your capital investment.

You'd engage any sort of help you could find to protect your investment.

Many people, Danke obviously and me, to a somewhat lesser extent, view unions as that tool to protect a lifetime investment.

All that said, it will not stop the march of technology that will shortly render all of us, truckers, pilots and sailors, obsolete, regardless of danke acknowledging that fact or not.

Hell, we're already most of the way there.

It doesn't take one tenth the skill and brawn and brains it did 50 years ago to fly a plane, conn a ship, or drive a truck today.

[angelatc]

While I tend to be suspicious of unions (see my response to Danke above) That is a bit callous, especially in today's job market.
And there is no reason that the basic idea of unions is inherently wrong, if an employer treats his workers fairly he should not have to worry about them.



Fairly is a subjective term. If the employee feels his compensation is inadequate he should seek employment elsewhere. Labor is simply a commodity - nothing more.

Unions are nothing more than a mechanism of force, using government to force higher-than-market wages.


Let me guess, you are in management right?

No. Cost accounting is my most accomplished skill set. I actually went to (and still go to) great lengths to stay out of management.

[angelatc]

Because in many cases it is industry wide. In danke's case, if his current airline is doing something unsafe, or something's peeving him off, he quits and goes elsewhere, more than likely it will be happening at his new employer as well.

Do that enough and you'll get blackballed and won't work anywhere.

So get another job you say.

Well that's all well and good if you have unskilled labor to offer.

People like Danke, people like me, we have spent our entire lives building a skill set that is precisely honed to accomplish one single complex task.

We have invested years in training, practice, education and on the job skill building to do that job over and over again, safely and efficiently.

It's sunk capital, just the same as your storefront building is. And just imagine how rightly pissed off you would be if the government, backed by powerful business interests, came along and changed the zoning on your property, effectively putting you out business and stealing a large chunk of your capital investment.

The difference here is that the airline is not his capital. He's a commodity.

[Swordsmyth]

If the employee feels his compensation is inadequate he should seek employment elsewhere.
Or he can negotiate with his employer, possibly in a group.


Unions are nothing more than a mechanism of force, using government to force higher-than-market wages.
They can be abused this way, but it is not inherent in the concept.

[Pauls' Revere]

Moot point anyways...won't be any truckers in another 20 years or so.

Driverless freight.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/09/03/business/the-end-of-the-road-for-the-trucker/index.html

[angelatc]

Or he can negotiate with his employer, possibly in a group.


They can be abused this way, but it is not inherent in the concept.

Name a union that isn't a political arm. Like socialism, it's a great theory but ignores basic human nature.

But what I'm hearing is that the liberals are right - people really are too stupid to care for themselves, so we need unions, laws and government to make sure people are "treated fairly."

I was afraid of that.

[Swordsmyth]

He's a commodity.
No he is one party to a contract, his labor is a commodity, he is not.

[Anti Federalist]

The difference here is that the airline is not his capital. He's a commodity.

Right...his skill is his capital.

His physical body to apply that skill is the "commodity".

And people dealing with commodities routinely band together either as sellers or buyers, to buy or sell in bulk and negotiate the best contract terms.

Barring government interference, that is how I view a labor union or in this case, a trade association.

[Swordsmyth]

Socialism always fails.

Co-operation is not socialism until it is backed by aggressive force.

[angelatc]

Co-operation is not socialism until it is backed by aggressive force.

Which is what a union is.

[angelatc]

And people dealing with commodities routinely band together either as sellers or buyers, to buy or sell in bulk and negotiate the best contract terms.



Usually, suppliers banding together to control the price of a commodity is illegal.

[Anti Federalist]

Name a union that isn't a political arm. Like socialism, it's a great theory but ignores basic human nature.

But what I'm hearing is that the liberals are right - people really are too stupid to care for themselves, so we need unions, laws and government to make sure people are "treated fairly."

I was afraid of that.

Now hold on...that's not what I'm saying, at least the laws and government part.

Have you ever consulted an attorney?

Hired a mechanic?

Seen a doctor?

Why?

Because it's presumed that that person knows more about the subject than you do.

Obviously these truckers got shafted...didn't know the language, didn't know the law, didn't know how to read (we can leave aside the argument about why we are insisting on importing millions and millions of semi-literates like these guys for another time) and could not afford to hire legal advice.

To band together as a team of people and pool resources to hire somebody to review legal clauses and negotiate a better deal is hardly "top down government central command socialism".

[Swordsmyth]

Name a union that isn't a political arm.
That does not prove it has to be that way

Like socialism, it's a great theory but ignores basic human nature.
So does every other theory in economics. All theory suffers when it meets application. Nothing humans do is beyond corruption.


But what I'm hearing is that the liberals are right - people really are too stupid to care for themselves, so we need unions, laws and government to make sure people are "treated fairly."
Some yes but not what we have and certainly not more which is what Liberals want.

[Swordsmyth]

Which is what a union is.
It does not have to be.

[Anti Federalist]

Usually, suppliers banding together to control the price of a commodity is illegal.

To keep people "safe" from being swindled, because they are too stupid to do otherwise.

#triggered

SOCIALISM!!!

;)

Kidding aside, yes, I understand that "price fixing" to control a commodity price is in general illegal, but there are other facets of delivery and distribution and storage and any number of deals made in the supply chain to efficiently move commodities in bulk.

And should it even be illegal?

ETA 2 - Hey, might be way to eliminate all unions. Charge them with collusion and price fixing.

[Swordsmyth]

Usually, suppliers banding together to control the price of a commodity is illegal.
But collective negotiation (as opposed to control) is not, and if it is it should not be. (barring special circumstances)

[angelatc]

Now hold on...that's not what I'm saying.

Have you ever consulted an attorney?

Hired a mechanic?

Seen a doctor?

Why?

Because it's presumed that that person knows more about the subject than you do.

Obviously these truckers got shafted...didn't know the language, didn't know the law, didn't know how to read (we can leave aside the argument about why we are insisting on importing millions and millions of semi-literates like these guys for another time) and could not afford to hire legal advice.

To band together as a team of people and pool resources to hire somebody to review legal clauses and negotiate a better deal is hardly "top down government central command socialism".

I'm not big on banding together because libertarianism: what's right for you is probably not right for me. Fictional you has a wife and 8 kids on 30 acres, fictional me has no kids, no mortgage and will happily live in my truck.

But my original question remains: why would a guy keep working a job where he was netting less than $1 a week?

[angelatc]

But collective negotiation (as opposed to control) is not, and if it is it should not be. (barring special circumstances)
But until Right To Work finally passed, there was no individual negotiation allowed. That's incompatible with a free market.

[angelatc]

T
ETA 2 - Hey, might be way to eliminate all unions. Charge them with collusion and price fixing.

I think Right To Work is a better solution. If you want to band together and hold out for a better deal then alrighty. But that shouldn't give unions the right to stop me from cutting a seperate deal.

[Swordsmyth]

But until Right To Work finally passed, there was no individual negotiation allowed. That's incompatible with a free market.
In case you did not understand I am against most unions most of the time, and although I am not certain what I would think in a perfect libertarian world I support "Right to work" laws in our current world.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not big on banding together because libertarianism: what's right for you is probably not right for me. Fictional you has a wife and 8 kids on 30 acres, fictional me has no kids, no mortgage and will happily live in my truck.

Oh listen, I hear you.

I am not a joiner, I'm not a group person, I don't generally like people and I live a fairly solitary life.

But the fact of the matter is that there are often times in life even a curmudgeonly, misanthropic old grouch like myself has to "join the team" to accomplish a larger goal.

Hell, every day I work I have to do that, I rely on the crew to do all their jobs, as there are too many to do all by myself.

And there is nothing more free market libertarian than the concept of division of labor.

But the sad fact is that the more you do that, the more you specialize, the more you must rely on others and teams.

And when you do that you ultimately find yourself acquiescing your desires and wants to those of the group.

That is why I do so despise this modern world that is being thrust upon us. We will all be atoms of individuality, free to fly our freak flag as high as we want, but real freedom will be a foreign concept to the Brave New World, because real freedom requires true autonomy, and that just cannot be permitted in the regulatory nanny state hell that the prison planet is turning into.


But my original question remains: why would a guy keep working a job where he was netting less than $1 a week?

I'm guessing because if they didn't they would lose everything they had put into what they thought was some sort of "rent to own" scheme to purchase a truck.

Even more important to keep in mind, none of this would have happened if some environmental jihadist in the Kalifornia government had not issued a fatwa banning all the old trucks these guys were keeping going, and would have eventually cycled out for newer, cleaner equipment as years rolled by anyway.

[Anti Federalist]

I think Right To Work is a better solution. If you want to band together and hold out for a better deal then alrighty. But that shouldn't give unions the right to stop me from cutting a seperate deal.

Not opposed.

[oyarde]

I , of course would never participate in a labor union . I would though be happy to help negotiate any contracts for Danke to participate in .

[phill4paul]

Because they only make the problem worse.

And they do. Union is, and of itself, not a bad free market endeavor. Forever "middle men" becomes, over time, not much different than governmental bureaucracy.

[Working Poor]

The reason I ask is that one of the foundations of Libertarian philosophy is that we don't need labor laws and minimum wages because people won't bother to work if they're not making money. And yet...here's this guy.

It is almost impossible to get a "job" that doesn't require some kind of regulatory red tape BS that cost the worker money in order to work. Phluck Regulatory BS.
It seems that a lot of people vote in favor of these things so what can you do? For a lot of people no matter which they they turn some bureaucrat has their hand out. This is pretty much why Trump won is the working class person is getting screwed for a long time now. I used to have several different licensures but I gave them all up because I just couldn't stand asking regulatory boards for permission to do what I am trained to do.

I am a minimalist I live very simply on the least amount of money I can eek by on. Not being dependent on money has taught me many things about the system and avoiding entanglement with it.

[Danke]

You too...you're nuts if you think it's not gonna happen.

Not saying it won't happen, but not in our lifetimes. Unlike a boat or truck, a plane can't just stop or pull over where rescue crews are sent.

There are currently too many variables involved getting people from point A to B safely and efficiently that don't require constant human interactions.

[Danke]

It doesn't take one tenth the skill and brawn and brains it did 50 years ago to fly a plane, conn a ship, or drive a truck today.

I have been flying for over 40 years, and some in jets designed in the '50s. Your statement WRT flying is fallacious.

[Danke]

Usually, suppliers banding together to control the price of a commodity is illegal.

And why is that? Oh yeah, government interference.

[Danke]

But until Right To Work finally passed, there was no individual negotiation allowed. That's incompatible with a free market.

You are contradicting yourself. They can just go work somewhere else, right? A place that is not a "Closed Shop."

[Wilbur Davis]

very likely, or afriad to

[Anti Federalist]

I have been flying for over 40 years, and some in jets designed in the '50s. Your statement WRT flying is fallacious.

When was the last time you pulled out an aviation sextant and shot night star sights to determine your position?

ETA - I can't speak to an ATP's work, that much is true, I hold nothing more than a rinky dink PP ticket and that is long out of date.

But I can say a new, or mostly new Skylane 182 is a much easier aircraft to fly than one equipped as originally delivered in 1956.

ETA 2 - And and I can tell you without any reservation, that, after going to sea for 40 years, some on vessels close to a hundred years old now, and they are much easier to operate now, than then.

Hell, I could train an 18 year old kid to do the bulk of my job in a month.

IF all the whiz bang technology is operating properly.

[Anti Federalist]

Not saying it won't happen, but not in our lifetimes. Unlike a boat or truck, a plane can't just stop or pull over where rescue crews are sent.

There are currently too many variables involved getting people from point A to B safely and efficiently that don't require constant human interactions.

"Lifetime" is an unknown variable.

I'm saying within 20 years, most all modes of transportation in the developed world, trucks, trains, cars, planes and ships, will be either autonomous (operating by themselves without direct oversight) or remotely operated (semi-autonomous, mostly operating by themselves, but still requiring human oversight, done remotely).

ETA - With this caveat: all of that will get put on hold if the machines fuck up in some way resulting in a spectacular and disastrous crash of some kind.

That will spook the public and push back the mad rush forward.

[helmuth_hubener]

The reason I ask is that one of the foundations of Libertarian philosophy is that we don't need labor laws and minimum wages because people won't bother to work if they're not making money. And yet...here's this guy.

He, like many in Silicon Valley, is "working for equity, not for cash." Only a chump would work for cash rather than equity, right? That's the rationale. "Think of the upside!"

And there is a big upside. But, it can take a long time to materialize. (And by then, in this particular case, California may have banned the new truck, too).

[H. E. Panqui]

:cool:

...yeah...screw the unions!..those workers don't need any preferential treatment!...only white collar professional people deserve preferential treatment because they earned their government license$/advantage$!...let's keep the bankster$ in control of everything!..the banksters have the $pecial knowledge needed to manage the free market!...and the bankster$ know exactly the be$t people to fill our government office$: good, fair-minded republicans and democrats who will selflessly promote the common good!...we don't need no stinking unions!...

#theonlypeoplewhoexperiencea'freemarket'arebankste r$

[Anti Federalist]

(And by then, in this particular case, California may have banned the new truck, too).

There, in one sentence, is the explanation as to why there is so little new capital development in the US.

Why would you go out on a limb and invest billions in new plants or equipment, when a single signature on an official government fatwa could ruin you?

[Ender]

There, in one sentence, is the explanation as to why there is so little new capital development in the US.

Why would you go out on a limb and invest billions in new plants or equipment, when a single signature on an official government fatwa could ruin you?

'Zactly- people can take care of themselves- it's all the shit regulations that prevents any kind of entrepreneurship or self sustaining ventures.

[merkelstan]

Great, nuanced discussion with valid points. One reason this forum rocks..

[Anti Federalist]

Great, nuanced discussion with valid points. One reason this forum rocks..

Well, sometimes we fire on all eight cylinders.

[Anti Federalist]

Boeing To Test Self-Flying Planes

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/06/20/boeing-self-flying-planes/

June 20, 2017 7:34 AM

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — It seems self-driving cars are all but a reality and now the world’s biggest aircraft manufacturer is working on the next step.

Boeing is working on self-piloting planes.

The company says increasing demand for flights, and a shortage of pilots, are the main reasons for their research.

They say planes can already take-off, cruise, and land without pilots and they plan to start simulations this summer.

Tests on a real plane could some as soon as next year.

[Pericles]

Because in many cases it is industry wide. In danke's case, if his current airline is doing something unsafe, or something's peeving him off, he quits and goes elsewhere, more than likely it will be happening at his new employer as well.

Do that enough and you'll get blackballed and won't work anywhere.

So get another job you say.

Well that's all well and good if you have unskilled labor to offer.

People like Danke, people like me, we have spent our entire lives building a skill set that is precisely honed to accomplish one single complex task.

We have invested years in training, practice, education and on the job skill building to do that job over and over again, safely and efficiently.

It's sunk capital, just the same as your storefront building is. And just imagine how rightly pissed off you would be if the government, backed by powerful business interests, came along and changed the zoning on your property, effectively putting you out business and stealing a large chunk of your capital investment.

You'd engage any sort of help you could find to protect your investment.

Many people, Danke obviously and me, to a somewhat lesser extent, view unions as that tool to protect a lifetime investment.

All that said, it will not stop the march of technology that will shortly render all of us, truckers, pilots and sailors, obsolete, regardless of danke acknowledging that fact or not.

Hell, we're already most of the way there.

It doesn't take one tenth the skill and brawn and brains it did 50 years ago to fly a plane, conn a ship, or drive a truck today.

This is the core issue. Government regulation almost by definition gives ell capitalized larger businesses an advantage over smaller competitors.

By not allowing "older and therefore unsafe" trucks to be used, only those with the capital to acquire the now required equipment can participate in the market. It works like the income tax, which is designed to prevent the accumulation of wealth.

It is no conspiracy of international bankers or some such. It is just those with sufficient ability to get government to inflict damage on a competitor, where then be a business for market share or an individual to build wealth that is the cause of the destruction of working America.

[Danke]

"Lifetime" is an unknown variable.I'm saying within 20 years, most all modes of transportation in the developed world, trucks, trains, cars, planes and ships, will be either autonomous (operating by themselves without direct oversight) or remotely operated (semi-autonomous, mostly operating by themselves, but still requiring human oversight, done remotely).ETA - With this caveat: all of that will get put on hold if the machines fuck up in some way resulting in a spectacular and disastrous crash of some kind.That will spook the public and push back the mad rush forward.AF training for his new position:http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/35021397450_cc4b774ce9_h-800x531.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

I , of course would never participate in a labor union . I would though be happy to help negotiate any contracts for Danke to participate in .

Most of the high paying jobs that people lament losing were either government (those haven't gone away) or union (which have been going away).

[oyarde]

Most of the high paying jobs that people lament losing were either government (those haven't gone away) or union (which have been going away).

I was always a salaried worker . I could get a better package myself through my own endeavors than any negotiated deal that includes the bottom performers . I would never pay dues , but that is just me .

[Danke]

When was the last time you pulled out an aviation sextant and shot night star sights to determine your position?

ETA - I can't speak to an ATP's work, that much is true, I hold nothing more than a rinky dink PP ticket and that is long out of date.

But I can say a new, or mostly new Skylane 182 is a much easier aircraft to fly than one equipped as originally delivered in 1956.

ETA 2 - And and I can tell you without any reservation, that, after going to sea for 40 years, some on vessels close to a hundred years old now, and they are much easier to operate now, than then.

Hell, I could train an 18 year old kid to do the bulk of my job in a month.

IF all the whiz bang technology is operating properly.

We have replaced the engineer and navigator positions already with technology , we are down to just two positions now. If one gets sick or croaks, there is a back up. Passenger planes already have environmental systems for people, so the cost of having two pilots is minimal compared to the expensive systems that would need to be put in place AND maintained for a truely autonomous aircraft. Programming every possible senario, would it have allowed a landing in the Hudson? What happens when electrical power is interrupted or someone hacks into the computer? Fire? Gonna rely on a flight attendant out of high school to handle that? Etc. etc.

Cargo, maybe, someday. Insurance can afford to pay for lost widgets. But lose a few hundred people here and there. Company would be sued out of business when their competitors are offering piloted transportation that was available ( I know, buyer beware, but lawyers and the stupid public). I think it would be a great marketing strategy, "fly with us, we have humans onboard, just in case."



And the transition would still involve operators on the ground wrt to things like turbulence avoidance, etc. (a thing you have to look outside sometimes and use you years of experience to judge when to tell everyone to buckle up, as one of many examples) so there is that expense too. You are paying operators on the ground, then it is not that much more to have them in the actual aircraft when you break down there portion of the ticket price. I get less than $1 per hour of flight per passenger. People pay more for parking at an airport or taking a taxing to the airport than what they pay me to fly them somewhere.


I could go on and on about all the variables, needless to say, we will not see what you envision for many many decades.

[Danke]

I was always a salaried worker . I could get a better package myself through my own endeavors than any negotiated deal that includes the bottom performers . I would never pay dues , but that is just me .

Most casino jobs aren't unionized, correct? Like your coat checking one. But tips are good, no?

[oyarde]

Most casino jobs aren't unionized, correct? Like your coat checking one. But tips are good, no?

I have never worked in a casino or coat check , but I will check your coat .

[Danke]

I have never worked in a casino or coat check , but I will check your coat .

Oh that's right, you just sit back and collect the tribal dividends and trade furs for beads.

[oyarde]

Oh that's right, you just sit back and collect the tribal dividends and trade furs for beads.

Not easy being Chief . I can put a list together for you of things I would like for you to put in your coat while I hold it .....

[nikcers]

Just look at the election: the establishment tricked Americans into thinking they were doing something about political corruption. The people's power is being sold for scraps, by someone who literally bragged about selling government power in the primaries. Anyone who saw through the trick was constantly slandered and beaten into submission by the MSM. The new political correct is people like Rand Paul having to bite his tongue when asked why he doesn't like the presidents shitty health care plan.

[Anti Federalist]

Programming every possible senario, would it have allowed a landing in the Hudson?

No, and a valid point and the only one that might save us.

All the "experts" said what Sullenberger did was impossible.

And so would the computers.

And everybody would have died on that flight.

[Swordsmyth]

No, and a valid point and the only one that might save us.

All the "experts" said what Sullenberger did was impossible.

And so would the computers.

And everybody would have died on that flight.

I'll choose Han Solo over C-3p0 to pilot the Millennium Falcon.

[specsaregood]

No, and a valid point and the only one that might save us.

All the "experts" said what Sullenberger did was impossible.

And so would the computers.

And everybody would have died on that flight.

This is how I always think of Danke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iOk2ME1LRY

[Danke]

This is how I always think of Danke

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iOk2ME1LRY

Can't restart engines after shutting em down for a fire. But other than that, totally possible...

[Anti Federalist]

This is how I always think of Danke

Drunk and on drugs?

[specsaregood]

Drunk and on drugs?

No, black.

[Origanalist]

Ha ha ha

[Origanalist]

Dankes dream girl?
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/p350x350/17191274_1869005466709915_4361022848914895278_n.jp g?oh=aee5a6ad62d07895bc32a0e3fce38777&oe=59C610FE

[Natural Citizen]

Moot point anyways...won't be any truckers in another 20 years or so.

No, probably not that soon. Right now everything is we own is, at one point or another, on a truck. With the introduction of 3D printers and drone delivery and paperless business and whatnot, I agree that day will gradually come. Trucking will be greatly reduced to say the least.

It's kind of a downer. Driving a truck is a pretty relaxing job. And an American heritage, really. For many years I got stuck being the truck driver among my main responsibilities. You're always the first one in to work and the last one to get back to shop, sometimes days later. But there's nothing more relaxing than being by yourself for extended hours and not having some asshat behind a desk barking at you. Not only that, but you see some really cool stuff. It's scenic as a mofo.

[Swordsmyth]

No, and a valid point and the only one that might save us.

All the "experts" said what Sullenberger did was impossible.

And so would the computers.

And everybody would have died on that flight.

Cargo ship that crashed into US destroyer reportedly on autopilot
https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/2017/06/23/cargo-ship-crashed-into-us-destroyer-reportedly-autopilot/103141378/