(07-30-2018 03:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  So now we need a whole new government program just to monitor it....

You don't see drones falling out of the sky or circling in loops until they run out of gas do you? No. And given that a team at the University Texas demonstrated just how easy it is to disable a drone that way, it's probably a safe bet that somewhere in the DoD that program already exists.

(07-30-2018 04:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 04:13 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  What you described is the two working together......not replacing the pilots all together.

BTW if there were no pilots on the plane this is what it would look like.




There might come a day when people put that much faith in a computer.......

its a long long long ways off


To many of us see how the things we use daily screw up

Mmmkay so just for giggles let's assume you're right. My flying scenario is identical to having a lead driver and (insert number here) of A.V. in convoy behind him. Let's say, very very generously for your side of the ledger, that only half of the 10m are employed in trucking. And again, being very generous, let's say we limit convoys to no more than 4 trucks. That's still 3 out of 4 jobs eliminated. That's 3.75m newly unemployed.

That's still a helluva shock to the system.

Is your 10 million just long haul drivers or all drivers? I guess I could look it up but will let you.

If you reduced it to 1 driver in every 3 or 4 on long hauls I could see that working if going to central hubs. It will not work from that point on when that one driver of a semi truck load is replaced by many local drivers taking smaller truck loads of goods to the millions of convenience stores.

But some of the truck drivers lost to automation are then replaced by tech support and other type of jobs.

(07-30-2018 04:25 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-30-2018 03:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  So now we need a whole new government program just to monitor it....

You don't see drones falling out of the sky or circling in loops until they run out of gas do you? No. And given that a team at the University Texas demonstrated just how easy it is to disable a drone that way, it's probably a safe bet that somewhere in the DoD that program already exists.

You dont see 10 million drones in the sky, now do you? Along with hundred million cars

(07-30-2018 04:34 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Is your 10 million just long haul drivers or all drivers? I guess I could look it up but will let you.

If you reduced it to 1 driver in every 3 or 4 on long hauls I could see that working if going to central hubs. It will not work from that point on when that one driver of a semi truck load is replaced by many local drivers taking smaller truck loads of goods to the millions of convenience stores.

But some of the truck drivers lost to automation are then replaced by tech support and other type of jobs.

Dept of Labor statistics has "transportation" at over 10m. Per the American Trucking Alliance:

Quote:There are approximately 3.5 million professional truck drivers in the United States, according to estimates by the American Trucking Association. The total number of people employed in the industry, including those in positions that do not entail driving, exceeds 8.7 million.

So, the number as always is slippery ... but there's good consensus it's several million and somewhere in the ballpark of 10m. Being the visual person that I am, I think this map of the most common job in each state makes the data a bit more digestible, even if the taste is bitter:

I think we have reached a point of trying a combination of the two. But decades off from wide spread use of driverless trucks. Especially locally.

Maybe one day but the trust factor is not close to being there today

(07-30-2018 04:43 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I think we have reached a point of trying a combination of the two. But decades off from wide spread use of driverless trucks. Especially locally.

Maybe one day but the trust factor is not close to being there today

no differently than Moore's law hit the wall.....this will as well.....

it will happen and develop as req'd.....

it just won't happen overnight like some believe.....

no differently than the biogen stocks in the 90s......

complicated shite takes time to develop....

that's the beauty of continual development.....

I'm not arguing the robots taking over. I'm arguing the UBI cannot work. Please show me how this works. The math doesn't work.

Let's use the poverty level number of $12,000. That's $1,000 per month. There are 325 million people in the U.S. That equates to $3.9 trillion. The government only takes in $3.7 trillion in tax revenue per year. Where is the money coming from? The government spent $3.8 trillion last year and only $750 billion was on welfare. That means you still have to come up with another $3.05 trillion to make this work. Are you going to take all the money from everyone making over $12,000 per year? I think we determined that socialism doesn't work.

Let's say you come up with an answer for this. Next question...What happens to prices when you pump an extra $3.9 trillion in cash into the economy every year? And what happens to the poverty level when even the bum living on the street gets $12,000 per year?

A great thread. My question. Why hasn’t rail displaced trucking? I know Buffet invested heavily into rail around 2010. I also want to add shipping on water is a bigger savings than what has been said here. I had a class on the value of the Great Lakes. Shipping on the Great Lakes was an unbelievable savings. I’m going to do some research on that but the number that pops into my head was a factor in the 100’s but that was 18 years ago. I would think trains on rail driven by robots solves every bodies issues above.

I found a couple of reads where maritime is 1/50th of the cost of rail but it’s a sliding scale by distance and weight. The heavier and the longer the greater the savings. Trucking is 8 x’s As expensive as rail too. Same formula same sliding scale.

Remember that Wall E cartoon. What if automation and unlimited energy lead us that way?

And it’s not just trucking.

T CRNA’s.

The cost of that degree is over 450,000. Now a Johnson and Johnson 58,000 dollar computer machine can put someone under anasthesia just under the level of consciousness. It’s better than a Dr. because it monitors your brain patterns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...683f5eeb4b


Out of curiosity I put in Johnson and Johnson anasthesia machine. Johnson and Johnson pulled the plug. Even though the machines worked great and they were put to trial in four hospitals and worked flawlessly and better than a human sales were poor.

An anasthesiaologist costs 2000 and the machine did the surgery for 200.

That paradigm won’t last.

(07-31-2018 12:14 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I found a couple of reads where maritime is 1/50th of the cost of rail but it’s a sliding scale by distance and weight. The heavier and the longer the greater the savings. Trucking is 8 x’s As expensive as rail too. Same formula same sliding scale.

Maritime is slow and obviously limited in where it can go. The further inland you need to go, the smaller the vessel to get there. They have tried a barge service from Norfolk to Richmond several times and it has failed to compete with rail every time because rail can carry so much more volume. Rail will get you to any terminal across the country within 3 days. If you need it faster, you use a truck (or air) and pay more.

I’m buying hook line and sinker that automation bit. It’s happening.

(07-30-2018 11:28 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A great thread. My question. Why hasn’t rail displaced trucking? I know Buffet invested heavily into rail around 2010. I also want to add shipping on water is a bigger savings than what has been said here. I had a class on the value of the Great Lakes. Shipping on the Great Lakes was an unbelievable savings. I’m going to do some research on that but the number that pops into my head was a factor in the 100’s but that was 18 years ago. I would think trains on rail driven by robots solves every bodies issues above.

Rail can only go where the tracks go. And those tracks are dramatically under-utilized compared to roads. And they're more expensive. And it requires dedicated NEW right of way to expand. And they're built for slow ye olde freight. And they constantly cross regular roads, leading to accidents. Trains are simply no longer economically viable beyond existing lines or niche areas (Detroit parking rail, West Virginia University to Morgantown rail, etc).

It is still cheaper to ship stuff into the Great Lakes than offload it and truck it to those states. The St. Lawrence Seaway still really matters. And that's a big part of the reason why Ontario pays Quebec to stay in Canada: you have to ship it up the Quebec portion of the Seaway reach Ontario.

(07-31-2018 07:41 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Maritime is slow and obviously limited in where it can go. The further inland you need to go, the smaller the vessel to get there. They have tried a barge service from Norfolk to Richmond several times and it has failed to compete with rail every time because rail can carry so much more volume. Rail will get you to any terminal across the country within 3 days. If you need it faster, you use a truck (or air) and pay more.

Rail cannot carry more volume unless your barges were Fisher Price ones.

(07-30-2018 10:41 PM)blah Wrote:  I'm not arguing the robots taking over. I'm arguing the UBI cannot work. Please show me how this works. The math doesn't work.

Let's use the poverty level number of $12,000. That's $1,000 per month. There are 325 million people in the U.S. That equates to $3.9 trillion. The government only takes in $3.7 trillion in tax revenue per year. Where is the money coming from? The government spent $3.8 trillion last year and only $750 billion was on welfare. That means you still have to come up with another $3.05 trillion to make this work. Are you going to take all the money from everyone making over $12,000 per year? I think we determined that socialism doesn't work.

Let's say you come up with an answer for this. Next question...What happens to prices when you pump an extra $3.9 trillion in cash into the economy every year? And what happens to the poverty level when even the bum living on the street gets $12,000 per year?

Eliminate all welfare programs. All of them. ALL. OF. THEM. Then replace with UBI. The US labor pool including unemployed is roughly 180m. Divide that into $3.8t and you get $21,111.11. Your $12,000 would fly in this scenario. If we truly eliminate EVERY welfare program before making it happen, that math looks surprisingly plausible for some really gargantuan back of the envelope stuff.

Basically ... you're using the entire population. That won't fly. Under(~21)? GTFO. Make over $100,000/yr? GTFO. Etc. You can carve away about 1/3 of the population pretty easily.

(07-31-2018 10:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Eliminate all welfare programs. All of them. ALL. OF. THEM. Then replace with UBI. The US labor pool including unemployed is roughly 180m. Divide that into $3.8t and you get $21,111.11. Your $12,000 would fly in this scenario. If we truly eliminate EVERY welfare program before making it happen, that math looks surprisingly plausible for some really gargantuan back of the envelope stuff.

Except that suddenly $21,111.11 becomes $0 when trying to purchase anything.

(07-31-2018 10:05 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 10:02 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Eliminate all welfare programs. All of them. ALL. OF. THEM. Then replace with UBI. The US labor pool including unemployed is roughly 180m. Divide that into $3.8t and you get $21,111.11. Your $12,000 would fly in this scenario. If we truly eliminate EVERY welfare program before making it happen, that math looks surprisingly plausible for some really gargantuan back of the envelope stuff.

Except that suddenly $21,111.11 becomes $0 when trying to purchase anything.

The Federal Reserve has been printing money as fast as necessary to keep interest rates at or near 0% for several years now. Until somebody in the international markets produces a currency that is trustworthy and has superior backing to the "full faith and credit of the United States gov't", however admittedly little that is worth, I don't think it matters. The capital flight into the United States from abroad right now is staggering.

(07-31-2018 09:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 07:41 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Maritime is slow and obviously limited in where it can go. The further inland you need to go, the smaller the vessel to get there. They have tried a barge service from Norfolk to Richmond several times and it has failed to compete with rail every time because rail can carry so much more volume. Rail will get you to any terminal across the country within 3 days. If you need it faster, you use a truck (or air) and pay more.

Rail cannot carry more volume unless your barges were Fisher Price ones.

Rail can carry more cargo than a full-blown trans Pacific vessel.



A barge can only carry about 48 of these.

Not if you measure by tonnage per hour or tonnage per dollar.

(07-31-2018 01:51 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 09:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-31-2018 07:41 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Maritime is slow and obviously limited in where it can go. The further inland you need to go, the smaller the vessel to get there. They have tried a barge service from Norfolk to Richmond several times and it has failed to compete with rail every time because rail can carry so much more volume. Rail will get you to any terminal across the country within 3 days. If you need it faster, you use a truck (or air) and pay more.

Rail cannot carry more volume unless your barges were Fisher Price ones.

Rail can carry more cargo than a full-blown trans Pacific vessel.



A barge can only carry about 48 of these.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk