What Life Is Like When You Make Less Than $15 an Hour

[mathlete]

Your solution to have people work less hours and get paid more is not based in reality. It has nothing to do with a "tough sell" to those in power...it's simply not feasible when many businesses fail to make a profit or are just hanging on. Increasing their employee cost will simply drive them out of business.

You know what else drives companies out of business when they operate in a consumer economy? Consumers being too poor to consume.

Profits as reflected by the S&P500 being at an all time high are not lacking. Income gains over the past three or four decades have been pretty substantial. The CBO study I cited shows where most of those gains are going though. Capital is flowing towards people with a low MPC. That's not exactly great.

Looking at the United States in isolation, 99+ percent of households are getting suckered.

It seems that all of the people who suggest that business pick up the slack are never the people who run businesses. None of them are willing to create a successful business, and then turn around and offer people a good paying job for only 30 hours a week of work...but they are quick to demand that others do so.

:/ You seem to know an awful lot about me.

[Midwest]

Doctors - If their job gets more efficient, more people would actually get medical care at a cheaper cost.  Since we have inadequate and overpriced medical care at the moment, this would be positive.  If the cost came down on medical care, demand would increase.  We are a long way from an excess of doctors.

A lot of what doctors do is listen to symptoms and move through a variety of decicsion trees in their head to arrive a a solution. You know when you call up a company and a machine answers the phone and says, "In a few words, describe the purpose of your call."? I can see something like that replacing at least parts of the urgent care or family medicine process.

That would be great.  Given the 1 hour to 2 hour wait at most family doc's/urgent care, you could increase service and reduce cost.  If you increase service and decrease cost, however, doctors will increase services offered and/or demand will go up.  We have a long way to go before doctor jobs are endangered.

Lawyers - Technology has made lawyers more efficient.  Increasing complexity of business and society has increased demand for some of their services.  I don't foresee a machine replacing the human element in law.

I think people will always want a human element involved with the interpretation of the law. Things like drawing up contracts, reading legal briefs, reviewing case studies. This is most of what lawyers do. Computers are great at this kind of thing.

Computers are great at standard situations and drawing up forms.  You still need someone with skill/knowledge to input those forms and interpret the law.  Lawyers are in a situation right now where there is an oversupply.  Much of this, however, can be traced to overproduction versus changing demand (although demand has changed with the economic downturn).  Remember we have just come off the worst downtown in 80 years.

200 years ago, the US agricultural economy used huge amounts of human and animal labor.  Today, almost none.  New jobs and new training were required, but the world didn't end.

I'm glad you mentioned animal labor. What kinds of jobs are animals doing now that technology has replaced the things they are good at?

Cars/tractors replaced horses and physical human labor.  That's been a huge benefit to society.

The skills and  required, however, have increased significantly.

I don't think this is necessarily true if you look at the jobs that most people are doing. Punching orders into a touch screen, keying numbers into a spreadsheet, scanning barcodes in an Amazon warehouse, driving your passengers to the spot that the GPS tells you to. None of these things really require more skill than driving a nail into a board or pulling a plow. The tools have changed. The degree of difficulty, not so much.

All the skills you listed require reading and/or rudimentary math skills.  200 years ago, you could survive or thrive without.  Today you can't.  Rudimentary math/reading are being replaced/upgraded by other skills

You have brought up cashiers and transportation on several occasions in this thread.  I use automated check registers regularly,but there are still lots of retail jobs.  Transportation is a much more complicated process and it will be many years before trucks/cars are driving themselves without an alert driver at the wheel.  Even if it's technologically feasible, there are safety concerns that will outweigh that for quite some time.

200 years ago, if you had explained to farmers/laborers that machines would replace them they would have been as concerned as you are.  Instead, we have a much higher standard of living today. 

[Midwest]

As a lawyer, I disagree on your take on lawyers.  Low end legal work is already being eviscerated by widely-available "fill-in-the-blanks" kind of forms and the broad availability of the information needed to fill out these forms.

The high-end legal stuff has always been a relatively small segment of the legal world.  Most of what we do isn't really that complex and a huge portion of it is just senseless paper-pushing.  A huge aspect of that high-end work--litigation discovery--is in the process of being automated already in the form of E-discovery.  Some inroads are being made in the due diligence area (which is basically the corporate side of litigation discovery). Frankly, the biggest gate to widescale automation of the legal field are the barriers to entry.

This is to say nothing about the over-saturation of lawyers that have significantly driven employment numbers down and have significantly depressed wages outside of the big firm environment and the increasing sensitivity to legal costs in the corporate world in general.

I don't think legal work ever gets completely automated, but it's going to provide gainful employment for a decreased number of people.

Taxabus -

As someone who works with and uses attorney's quite a bit, I'll give you my take.  Law schools have produced way too many lawyers over the past 5-10 years.  Meanwhile, law got hit hard during the downturn.  Finally, automation has hit attorneys at the low end.  Having said that, laws are increasingly complex and compliance failures can be costly/criminal.  At the high end, lawyers will be fine long term.

At the low end an analogy, tax software has been out for years yet many consumers still hire out tax prep because they are too lazy or intimidated to do it themselves.  This for a task they do every year.  It's hit lower end tax prep, but not eliminated it.  Drafting a will, writing a mortgage or a deed all use forms.  Despite that many people will simply continue to pay up because the time to figure it out isn't worth the effort and/or the cost of messing up is high. 

[Midwest]

As a lawyer, I disagree on your take on lawyers.  Low end legal work is already being eviscerated by widely-available "fill-in-the-blanks" kind of forms and the broad availability of the information needed to fill out these forms.

The high-end legal stuff has always been a relatively small segment of the legal world.  Most of what we do isn't really that complex and a huge portion of it is just senseless paper-pushing.  A huge aspect of that high-end work--litigation discovery--is in the process of being automated already in the form of E-discovery.  Some inroads are being made in the due diligence area (which is basically the corporate side of litigation discovery). Frankly, the biggest gate to widescale automation of the legal field are the barriers to entry.

This is to say nothing about the over-saturation of lawyers that have significantly driven employment numbers down and have significantly depressed wages outside of the big firm environment and the increasing sensitivity to legal costs in the corporate world in general.

I don't think legal work ever gets completely automated, but it's going to provide gainful employment for a decreased number of people.

Taxabus -

As someone who works with and uses attorney's quite a bit, I'll give you my take FWIW.  Law schools have produced way too many lawyers over the past 5-10 years.  Meanwhile, law got hit hard during the downturn.  Finally, automation has hit attorneys at the low end.  Having said that, laws are increasingly complex and compliance failures can be costly/criminal.  At the high end, lawyers will be fine long term.

At the low end an analogy, tax software has been out for years yet many consumers still hire out tax prep because they are too lazy or intimidated to do it themselves.  This for a task they do every year.  It's hit lower end tax prep, but not eliminated it.  Drafting a will, writing a mortgage or a deed all use forms which can/will be automated similar to tax software.  Despite that many people will simply continue to pay up because the time to figure it out isn't worth the effort and/or the cost of messing up is high.

[mathlete]

Cars/tractors replaced horses and physical human labor.  That's been a huge benefit to society.

It has certainly been a huge benefit to human society.

All the skills you listed require reading and/or rudimentary math skills.  200 years ago, you could survive or thrive without.  Today you can't.  Rudimentary math/reading are being replaced/upgraded by other skills

It took 200 years for the averege laborer to move from subsisting on physical talents to making use of rudimentary math and reading skills in their daily jobs.

Computers and machines are getting better at much faster rates than that.

Transportation is a much more complicated process and it will be many years before trucks/cars are driving themselves without an alert driver at the wheel.  Even if it's technologically feasible, there are safety concerns that will outweigh that for quite some time.

Google's self-driving cars have driven 1.7 million miles on California and Nevada roads without being the cause of an accident.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615124719.htm

In 2010, human drivers in the US caused 5 million+ auto accidents resulting the the loss of more than 30,000 lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

I agree that fears about safety will slow the adoption of self-driving vehicles, but these fears will be irrational and will cost tens of thousands of lives in the mean time.

200 years ago, if you had explained to farmers/laborers that machines would replace them they would have been as concerned as you are.  Instead, we have a much higher standard of living today.

And I think in 200 years, most people will have a much higher standard of living than we do today.

Only if we get rid of the notion that they have to earn their keep though.

[Midwest]

Only if we get rid of the notion that they have to earn their keep though.

Mathlete - You have some good points with regard to automation, but I believe many of your arguments are colored by your viewpoint that society should provide a comfortable lifestyle for those who choose not to work.  I disagree with you on that point.

[beltim]

Google's self-driving cars have driven 1.7 million miles on California and Nevada roads without being the cause of an accident.

..according to Google.  They've been in more accidents overall per mile driven than the average human-driven vehicle.

[mathlete]

Mathlete - You have some good points with regard to automation, but I believe many of your arguments are colored by your viewpoint that people shouldn't be required to work.

It's not whether I think people should or should not be required to work. It's about how in the very near future, many many people will be unable to do anything that merits getting a paycheck according to the free market.

[sunday]

Google's self-driving cars have driven 1.7 million miles on California and Nevada roads without being the cause of an accident.

..according to Google.  They've been in more accidents overall per mile driven than the average human-driven vehicle.

But not as the cause of accident, and no injuries.

Mathlete, I also agree with you on your view of automation. I also posit that computers and tech will take over in the field of medical diagnosis. Do you know of any companies that are developing that technology right now?

[kathrynd]

I think it makes more sense to hate rich people than poor people.  After all, rich people are the ones who always lorded it over me, treated me disrespectfully, and tried to block me from advancement due to my social status when I was living in poverty.  Poor people have never really tried to harm me before.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not me.  Poor people generally leave trash at camp sites, steal items, and drive older polluting vehicles with no insurance.

Rich people might steal, but they usually do it at the million or billion dollar level that is harder to directly connect to my day to day finances.

Rich people always stole way more from me than poor people.  Poor people might break into a house and steal a TV or something.  Rich people stole my job from me because they didn't like my personality.  Not my work ethic, not my results, not my attitude.  My personality.  What in the world is a person supposed to do about that?  How about nothing.

Rich people insulted and degraded me and tried to make me feel like I was an inferior human being for being born into a disadvantageous situation.  Poor people never made me feel that way.  And when I really needed help, guess who gave it?  Poor people helped out even though they really couldn't afford to.  Rich people just didn't give a crap.

So, yeah, I would find it a lot easier to hate rich people than poor people.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Really? 

You seriously think most people with money are "out to get you?"

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Maybe you need to take an honest look at yourself.  Maybe the reason you have not done well is not "because rich people are out to get me," but because you have a bad attitude.  You look to blame someone else for all of your problems (because it's a whole lot easier than evaluating the reasons YOU failed), and the "rich boss" is an easy target.

You've been on these forums long enough to know that most rich people are not born that way, but come from modest means.  You know, those frugal "Millionaire Next Door" types.

I dare say a lot of the people who read these forums are those "rich" you seek to vilify.

They did NOT "have an advantage over you."  I suspect many of us "Millionaire Next Door" folks started out in similar circumstances to you.  Some of us probably started with less than you did. 

So forgive us if we roll our eyes when you start in with the "evil privileged rich people all lied, cheated, and stole to get ahead and live their lives only to screw the poor" routine.  The fact is, most rich folks worked hard in school, got good jobs, lived frugally, saved and invested (how is that "evil?").  Only a small percentage of the millionaires in this country were born to wealth.

I don't hate "the poor."  I go out of my way to help the poor who want to help themselves.  That includes educating them and helping them avoid stupid decisions (like owning a smart phone if they make minimum wage- that is nothing short of ridiculous).  I suspect many of the others on these forums who have risen from modest means do the same.

But I do get a bit sick of the whiners who have not succeeded blaming those of us who have succeeded for what are, really, their own failures.

If you have not been able to succeed, don't blame those more successful than yourself, LOOK IN THE MIRROR to find the person most responsible for your position in life.

Great post.

I get so tired of listening to people complain about businesses, how they deserve to be paid more. How they should offer more hours where they work, or receive more benefits. If the employer isn't  required to provide them, why should thy?
 The owner of the company should have all the power to make those decisions. After all, the employee has the option to go somewhere else.

[beltim]

Google's self-driving cars have driven 1.7 million miles on California and Nevada roads without being the cause of an accident.

..according to Google.  They've been in more accidents overall per mile driven than the average human-driven vehicle.

But not as the cause of accident, and no injuries.

…according to Google.

[mathlete]

Mathlete, I also agree with you on your view of automation. I also posit that computers and tech will take over in the field of medical diagnosis. Do you know of any companies that are developing that technology right now?

IBM

http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/health/

[GuitarStv]

Google's self-driving cars have driven 1.7 million miles on California and Nevada roads without being the cause of an accident.

..according to Google.  They've been in more accidents overall per mile driven than the average human-driven vehicle.

But not as the cause of accident, and no injuries.

…according to Google.

Google wouldn't lie to me.  Their corporate motto is "Don't be evil".

[mathlete]

Great post.

I get so tired of listening to people complain about businesses, how they deserve to be paid more. How they should offer more hours where they work, or receive more benefits. If the employer isn't  required to provide them, why should thy?
 The owner of the company should have all the power to make those decisions. After all, the employee has the option to go somewhere else.

Maybe it's not as sinister as other posters will make it out to be, but when you have money you have power, and when you have power, you set up rules to ensure that more money and more power continue to flow to you. I suspect that most people who do this probably have convinced themselves that the rules they set up are just, rather than rules they like because people like themselves benefit from them.

Consider the following things about the state of rule in the United States of America:

Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than labor even though a vast majority of the voting public subsists off of income from labor, not capital gains. In fact, the bottom 50% of households own almost no capital assets.

The median net worth of a congressman is greater than one million dollars.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/01/millionaires-club-for-first-time-most-lawmakers-are-worth-1-million-plus/

This shouldn't be that surprising because with the way our election system, running a campaign is essentially a full time job. It is cost prohibitive for a middle class citizen to run a campaign. The government "of the people" is really a government of the rich people.

When the housing market, equities market, and job market all crashed in 2008, it was the equities market that recovered the quickest thanks in no small part to trillion dollar bond buying programs instituted by the Federal Reserve and their Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, who by the way was appointed/reappointed by Presidents of both parties (demonstrating that this whole "money" thing is blind to the colors of party politics).

It's pretty clear that rich people make up the government and more often than not, the government legislates in favor of rich people.

So you may roll your eyes when someone talks about how the rich are out to get us, and understandably so. But the notion of the flow of capital being just in a free market is equally eye-rolling.

[mathlete]

…according to Google.

I appreciate your skepticism but unfortunately that's the only data point we have.

Unless you have some more compelling source of information, I'm going to take  them at face value on this one.

Besides, even if we're being lied to and Google's cars are crashing all up and down the Pacific Coast Highway, we're talking about a delay in the timetable, not a change in trajectory.

Does anyone disagree with this statement: "If your job involves operating a vehicle to move people or things from point A to point B, you're living on borrowed time."?

[Midwest]

…according to Google.

I appreciate your skepticism but unfortunately that's the only data point we have.

Unless you have some more compelling source of information, I'm going to take  them at face value on this one.

Besides, even if we're being lied to and Google's cars are crashing all up and down the Pacific Coast Highway, we're talking about a delay in the timetable, not a change in trajectory.

Does anyone disagree with this statement: "If your job involves operating a vehicle to move people or things from point A to point B, you're living on borrowed time."?

What's your projected timetable for "borrowed time"?  10 years from now? 20?  30?  10 years from now for most commercial vehicles isn't happening.  The technology is in its infancy. Driving a small car versus a semi are 2 different things.  If you are are talking 20 or 30, who knows what the future holds. 

Although planes have much of the avionics in place, there are still people in the cockpit of commercial jets.  That would seem an easier transition than a truck and its not happening any time soon. 

[mathlete]

What's your projected timetable for "borrowed time"?  10 years from now? 20?  30?  10 years from now isn't happening.  If you are are talking 20 or 30, who knows what the future holds.  Although planes have much of the avionics in place, there are still people in the cockpit of commercial jets.  That would seem an easier transition than a truck.

Volvo is already planning a rollout in Sweden in 2017. Google too pegged 2017 as the year for commercial availability. I think  those timetables are maybe a little optimistic, but what do I know?

I'm not a soothsayer so I'll stop just after saying "sooner rather than later". I've seen the technology. Some of the technology is already available (self-parking cars are on the market and cars with emergency brake assist are already on the market). If it isn't ready today, it soon will be.

If the technology is available and affordable and human beings continue to be employed in these types of occupations, you can chalk that up to human inefficiency in the market. The argument doesn't really change if we continue paying more money to keep human beings doing labor for irrational reasons. These humans won't be doing enough to "earn their keep" relative to the machines that could be doing their job. That statement is true regardless of whether or not the powers that be purchase a fleet of self-driving cars/trucks/busses.

I don't know as much about aviation, but maybe the above explains why we still have human pilots. United States Airline Pilots have a union, maybe that's a market inefficiency keeping the planes from flying themselves. Maybe it's a liability issue on behalf of the airlines. Who knows?

As I said, I can't claim to be able to throw out dates or even specific time tables for this kind of thing, but as I continue to say, the writing is on the wall, is it not?

[Midwest]

What's your projected timetable for "borrowed time"?  10 years from now? 20?  30?  10 years from now isn't happening.  If you are are talking 20 or 30, who knows what the future holds.  Although planes have much of the avionics in place, there are still people in the cockpit of commercial jets.  That would seem an easier transition than a truck.

Volvo is already planning a rollout in Sweden in 2017. Google too pegged 2017 as the year for commercial availability. I think maybe those timetables are maybe a little optimistic, but what do I know?

I'm not a soothsayer so I'll stop just after saying "sooner rather than later". I've seen the technology. Some of the technology is already available (self-parking cars are on the market and cars with emergency brake assist are already on the market). If it isn't ready today, it soon will be.

If the technology is available and affordable and human beings continue to be employed in these types of occupations, you can chalk that up to human inefficiency in the market. The argument doesn't really change if we continue paying more money to keep human beings doing labor for irrational reasons. These humans won't be doing enough to "earn their keep" relative to the machines that could be doing their job. That statement is true regardless of whether the powers that be purchase a fleet of self-driving cars/trucks/busses, as long as the tech is available.

I don't know as much about aviation, but maybe the above explains why we still have human pilots. United States Airline Pilots have a union, maybe that's a market inefficiency keeping the planes from flying themselves. Maybe it's a liability issue on behalf of the airlines. Who knows?

As I said, I can't claim to be able to throw out dates or even specific time tables for this kind of thing, but as I continue to say, the writing is on the wall, is it not?

Self parking cars are a slow speed application (much easier).  Google pushed the commercial roll out of cars to 2020 if memory serves.  Getting this to work on a semi or large truck would be much more difficult in my opinion.  Adoption will take time if it ever happens.  Even if it does happen, you'll need humans to load and unload many of the trucks (think UPS).  I just don't see it taking over the world in 10 years.  Beyond 10 years or 15 years, who knows.

BTW, I think we have humans because in certain situations actual intelligence is better than artificial.  Look into drones.  The FAA won't let them fly in most situations w/o a rated pilot.  I'd rather have a drone crash into a field than an 18 wheeler out of control on a crowded interstate.

[beltim]

…according to Google.

I appreciate your skepticism but unfortunately that's the only data point we have.

Unless you have some more compelling source of information, I'm going to take  them at face value on this one.

Besides, even if we're being lied to and Google's cars are crashing all up and down the Pacific Coast Highway, we're talking about a delay in the timetable, not a change in trajectory.

Does anyone disagree with this statement: "If your job involves operating a vehicle to move people or things from point A to point B, you're living on borrowed time."?

The data we have is that Google self-driving cars get into accidents at a rate higher than human-driven cars.  Google's opinion is just that - an opinion - with no supporting information.  So the possible conclusions are:
1) Google is unlucky over 1.7 million miles
2) Some of the accidents are their fault.

Since they won't release the accident reports, I see no reason to believe them.

[mathlete]

Getting this to work on a semi or large truck would be much more difficult in my opinion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimgorzelany/2015/05/06/self-driving-semi-is-king-of-the-road/

Nevada licensed a self-driving semi last month. It's still in developmental stages, but at least one state is comfortable with at least one of these things driving on it's public highways.

Long haul trucks do most of their driving in straight lines on just a handful of roads. Automating the demands of a sedan that navigates a city or suburb seems like it would be more complicated.

Oh and by-the-by, self-driving semis won't get tired or hungry either which means if you own/operate/work at a truck stop, your days may be numbered too.

Adoption will take time if it ever happens.

If adoption doesn't happen, I'm willing to bet that will be a human issue rather than a technological issue. Keeping people working in jobs that machines are better and safer at is a lose-lose future when compared to my future of paying the would-be driver to stay at home. The company loses because they have an inferior employee, and the employee loses out on boundless free time.

Even if it does happen, you'll need humans to load and unload many of the trucks (think UPS).  I just don't see it taking over the world in 10 years.  Beyond 10 years or 15 years, who knows.

Replacing a job that requires someone to navigate an 80,000 lb vehicle down the road at 65 MPH with a job that requires them to pick up something and move it somewhere else is backwards.

I happen to think that loading/unloading is on the automation chopping block too but even if it isn't, it is a less skilled job that human beings are already doing. Loading/unloading pays less than driving a truck does and it will pay even less when all the truck drivers are unemployed and competing for jobs with the existing loaders.

BTW, I think we have humans because in certain situations actual intelligence is better than artificial.  Look into drones.  The FAA won't let them fly in most situations w/o a rated pilot.  I'd rather have a drone crash into a field than an 18 wheeler out of control.

Human driving records speak for themselves. We kill each other with cars in numbers that pass 5 figures every year. Sometimes we text while driving or get behind the wheel after a few too many drinks.

I want to see what the robots can do.

[Paul der Krake]

Don't you think the press would be all over a google car getting in an accident? If a self-driven car ran into me I would be telling everybody I know.

[beltim]

Don't you think the press would be all over a google car getting in an accident? If a self-driven car ran into me I would be telling everybody I know.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you saying Google cars don't get into accidents?  Because Sergey Brin has given some details of the accidents they've gotten into:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/03/google-sergey-brin-self-driving-cars-accident-reports/28428811/
And yes, he alleges that all of the accidents were the other driver's fault. 

[Midwest]

Mathlete:

I'll bet you 15-20 years from now there is a driver in the seat of all or nearly all semi's going down the road.  The semi's may be robotic and autonomous, but a driver will be there as a fail safe.  You may believe it's totally unnecessary, but I suspect they will be there.  Planes have had autopilot for years, but there's still a whole bunch of people sitting in the cockpit.  Drones are flying around in empty airspace, but somebody's still watching.

FYI - Drones require a rated pilot in combat airspace.  Have you seen the reg's the FAA has for US airspace?  Semi's will be at least that restrictive.

If humans are so unnecessary in transportation, why do ocean freighters still have people on board?  Think about it they are slow speed and do most of their travel in unpopulated areas.  Seems like a perfect application, yet their is still a human fail safe on board.

As I understand it, much of googles fleet is for applications below 25mph.  I think this is a great application for urban taxi's in the much shorter term, just not for delivery vehicles and commercial trucks in the short term.  Long term, who knows.

Midwest

[sunday]

…according to Google.

I appreciate your skepticism but unfortunately that's the only data point we have.

Unless you have some more compelling source of information, I'm going to take  them at face value on this one.

Besides, even if we're being lied to and Google's cars are crashing all up and down the Pacific Coast Highway, we're talking about a delay in the timetable, not a change in trajectory.

Does anyone disagree with this statement: "If your job involves operating a vehicle to move people or things from point A to point B, you're living on borrowed time."?

The data we have is that Google self-driving cars get into accidents at a rate higher than human-driven cars.  Google's opinion is just that - an opinion - with no supporting information.  So the possible conclusions are:
1) Google is unlucky over 1.7 million miles
2) Some of the accidents are their fault.

Since they won't release the accident reports, I see no reason to believe them.

It could also be that they're an "attractive nuisance" that makes people distracted or want to take their chances to get into an accident (deep pockets). I wonder if the Oscar Meyer wiener truck had a higher than normal accident rate as well.

[mm1970]

"Ok Debbie, there are 8 ads for childcare workers in the Sunday paper: maybe apply there?"

This was maybe a bad example.

Surely you want people who are trained and have the aptitude to work with children.  (I would!!)

And also, childcare workers are poorly paid in general.

[Paul der Krake]

Don't you think the press would be all over a google car getting in an accident? If a self-driven car ran into me I would be telling everybody I know.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you saying Google cars don't get into accidents?  Because Sergey Brin has given some details of the accidents they've gotten into:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/03/google-sergey-brin-self-driving-cars-accident-reports/28428811/
And yes, he alleges that all of the accidents were the other driver's fault.

I believe the public's appetite to see their car fail is greater than their ability to cover it up. With virtually everybody having access to a camera on their phone, I assume that the first thought for most people when realizing that they've been hit by one would be to take pictures and post "lol got hit by one google's car today hahaha" on their social network of choice (or show it to someone in their family who has a social media account), where it would be picked up by the ever-growing tech blogosphere. The CNBC pundits would have a field day, Slashdot and Hacker News would boil over in speculative comments. The fact that this hasn't happened leads me to believe that they're telling the truth.

[beltim]

Don't you think the press would be all over a google car getting in an accident? If a self-driven car ran into me I would be telling everybody I know.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you saying Google cars don't get into accidents?  Because Sergey Brin has given some details of the accidents they've gotten into:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/03/google-sergey-brin-self-driving-cars-accident-reports/28428811/
And yes, he alleges that all of the accidents were the other driver's fault.

I believe the public's appetite to see their car fail is greater than their ability to cover it up. With virtually everybody having access to a camera on their phone, I assume that the first thought for most people when realizing that they've been hit by one would be to take pictures and post "lol got hit by one google's car today hahaha" on their social network of choice (or show it to someone in their family who has a social media account), where it would be picked up by the ever-growing tech blogosphere. The CNBC pundits would have a field day, Slashdot and Hacker News would boil over in speculative comments. The fact that this hasn't happened leads me to believe that they're telling the truth.

Oh, I see.  So then you go with the first option I described earlier – that Google is just unlucky over 1.7 million miles ?

[mathlete]

Mathlete:

I'll bet you 15-20 years from now there is a driver in the seat of all or nearly all semi's going down the road.  The semi's may be robotic and autonomous, but a driver will be there as a fail safe.  You may believe it's totally unnecessary, but I suspect they will be there.  Planes have had autopilot for years, but there's still a whole bunch of people sitting in the cockpit.  Drones are flying around in empty airspace, but somebody's still watching.

I by no means think that self-driving cars will be flawless. They're absolutely going to kill someone at some point, so your idea of humans as a fail safe is at least somewhat compelling.

Here is a thought experiment though.

By how many accidents per X miles does the combination of a human driver + robot driver need to beat the robot driver alone before the cost of having both in the cabin outweighs the savings on insurance premiums?

I don't know the answer to this question but I can bet you that the long-haul companies looking into automation are trying to figure that out though.

The BLS pegs the median semi driver's salary $39.5K a year. Add on top of that the cost of any benefits that this guy gets and the incentive to get him out of the driver's seat is already huge. As big of a factor as his salary is though, it's dwarfed by the opportunity cost of the 8 hours of downtime a day that the truck loses while it is waiting for it's human baby sitter to sleep, eat, and go to the bathroom.

FYI - Drones require a rated pilot in combat airspace.  Have you seen the reg's the FAA has for US airspace?  Semi's will be at least that restrictive.

If it is legislation, and not limitations on technology keeping people employed then my argument still stands. Whether they're "supervising" a machine that is better than they could ever be, or sitting at home collected a check because they're out of work, the net result is still human capital appearing as a negative item on most balance sheets.

If humans are so unnecessary in transportation, why do ocean freighters still have people on board?  Think about it they are slow speed and do most of their travel in unpopulated areas.  Seems like a perfect application, yet their is still a human fail safe on board.

Ocean Freighters aren't my area of expertise but I can say with confidence that they are no longer employing scores of dudes whose job it is to shovel coal into a furnace.

The mere fact that we're discussing timelines in terms of 15-20 years and not 150-200 years kind of shows where we're headed.

Human labor is losing ground on our machine and computer counterparts every day. I don't know if it will be 10 years or 50 years or whatever, but the day is coming. I think we should be ready for it and I think that getting ready for it involves at least pondering what a world would be like in which most people can't find jobs.

[sunday]

Human pilots aren't the best failsafes either. I can recall at least two cases of depressed pilots slamming a plane full of people into the side of a mountain, and recently a plane crashed when the human pilot overrode the automatic landing system because they thought the autopilot was wrong.

[mathlete]

Oh, I see.  So then you go with the first option I described earlier – that Google is just unlucky over 1.7 million miles ?

If I remember, I'll try to dig out one of my college text books to determine which statistical test I need to do to determine if the incidence rate of wrecks between Google's cars and the nation at large is really different.

I can tell you that they're not on completely different orders of magnitude though. Remember that we're talking about 12 accidents over 1.7 million miles meaning that each accident still has a huge marginal impact on the incidence rate.

We know that one accident was caused by another driver rear-ending Google's car and Google has said that another was while the human Google employee, not the software, was driving. So we're down to 10. Sure you could assume Google is lying and covering up the other 10, but at this point we're only a small handful of accidents away from being right in line with the national average.

[Paul der Krake]

Don't you think the press would be all over a google car getting in an accident? If a self-driven car ran into me I would be telling everybody I know.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Are you saying Google cars don't get into accidents?  Because Sergey Brin has given some details of the accidents they've gotten into:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/03/google-sergey-brin-self-driving-cars-accident-reports/28428811/
And yes, he alleges that all of the accidents were the other driver's fault.

I believe the public's appetite to see their car fail is greater than their ability to cover it up. With virtually everybody having access to a camera on their phone, I assume that the first thought for most people when realizing that they've been hit by one would be to take pictures and post "lol got hit by one google's car today hahaha" on their social network of choice (or show it to someone in their family who has a social media account), where it would be picked up by the ever-growing tech blogosphere. The CNBC pundits would have a field day, Slashdot and Hacker News would boil over in speculative comments. The fact that this hasn't happened leads me to believe that they're telling the truth.

Oh, I see.  So then you go with the first option I described earlier – that Google is just unlucky over 1.7 million miles ?

I reject your hypothesis that they must be at fault some times, otherwise they would be closer to human averages.

Drive in the right most lane of a busy freeway and don't leave space for people entering the freeway to merge. Eventually, someone with poor control of his vehicle will run into you, yet you won't be found at fault.

[beltim]

Oh, I see.  So then you go with the first option I described earlier – that Google is just unlucky over 1.7 million miles ?

If I remember, I'll try to dig out one of my college text books to determine which statistical test I need to do to determine if the incidence rate of wrecks between Google's cars and the nation at large is really different.

I can tell you that they're not on completely different orders of magnitude though. Remember that we're talking about 12 accidents over 1.7 million miles meaning that each accident still has a huge marginal impact on the incidence rate.

We know that one accident was caused by another driver rear-ending Google's car and Google has said that another was while the human Google employee, not the software, was driving. So we're down to 10. Sure you could assume Google is lying and covering up the other 10, but at this point we're only a small handful of accidents away from being right in line with the national average.

The cars have been driven about 1 million miles in automated mode, though, so you need to use that denominator if you subtract out when there was a human driver.  I don't see the validity in subtracting when the car was rear-ended to determine whether Google was lucky or not.  And the average accident rate is about 1.8 per million miles (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/safety-in-numbers-charting-traffic-safety-and-fatality-data).  So, it's most of an order of magnitude difference.

Sure, it's possible that this isn't a large enough data set to say that it's not more dangerous.  But no statistical analysis will let you transform a higher accident rate into a meaningful claim that Google's self-driving car is less dangerous.

[beltim]

Oh, and I think you want the Poisson distribution.

[Midwest]

Mathlete:

I'll bet you 15-20 years from now there is a driver in the seat of all or nearly all semi's going down the road.  The semi's may be robotic and autonomous, but a driver will be there as a fail safe.  You may believe it's totally unnecessary, but I suspect they will be there.  Planes have had autopilot for years, but there's still a whole bunch of people sitting in the cockpit.  Drones are flying around in empty airspace, but somebody's still watching.

I by no means think that self-driving cars will be flawless. They're absolutely going to kill someone at some point, so your idea of humans as a fail safe is at least somewhat compelling.

Here is a thought experiment though.

By how many accidents per X miles does the combination of a human driver + robot driver need to beat the robot driver alone before the cost of having both in the cabin outweighs the savings on insurance premiums?

I don't know the answer to this question but I can bet you that the long-haul companies looking into automation are trying to figure that out though.

The BLS pegs the median semi driver's salary $39.5K a year. Add on top of that the cost of any benefits that this guy gets and the incentive to get him out of the driver's seat is already huge. As big of a factor as his salary is though, it's dwarfed by the opportunity cost of the 8 hours of downtime a day that the truck loses while it is waiting for it's human baby sitter to sleep, eat, and go to the bathroom.

Couple things

1) When it comes to human life, regulators err completely on the side of safety.  If a human makes the truck safer, they will be there.  Look at all the safety features on cars (backing camera's come to mind).  The safety police will make it so.  In this instance, I tend to agree with them.

2) If companies wanted their trucks to run 24/7, they could require driver teams or make that happen other ways.  To my knowledge, that hasn't happened so maybe the advantage is less than you think as it relates to the trucks running 24/7

Human labor is losing ground on our machine and computer counterparts every day. I don't know if it will be 10 years or 50 years or whatever, but the day is coming. I think we should be ready for it and I think that getting ready for it involves at least pondering what a world would be like in which most people can't find jobs.

I think we have a long way to go before that happens.

[MoneyCat]

I think it makes more sense to hate rich people than poor people.  After all, rich people are the ones who always lorded it over me, treated me disrespectfully, and tried to block me from advancement due to my social status when I was living in poverty.  Poor people have never really tried to harm me before.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not me.  Poor people generally leave trash at camp sites, steal items, and drive older polluting vehicles with no insurance.

Rich people might steal, but they usually do it at the million or billion dollar level that is harder to directly connect to my day to day finances.

Rich people always stole way more from me than poor people.  Poor people might break into a house and steal a TV or something.  Rich people stole my job from me because they didn't like my personality.  Not my work ethic, not my results, not my attitude.  My personality.  What in the world is a person supposed to do about that?  How about nothing.

Rich people insulted and degraded me and tried to make me feel like I was an inferior human being for being born into a disadvantageous situation.  Poor people never made me feel that way.  And when I really needed help, guess who gave it?  Poor people helped out even though they really couldn't afford to.  Rich people just didn't give a crap.

So, yeah, I would find it a lot easier to hate rich people than poor people.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Really? 

You seriously think most people with money are "out to get you?"

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

Maybe you need to take an honest look at yourself.  Maybe the reason you have not done well is not "because rich people are out to get me," but because you have a bad attitude.  You look to blame someone else for all of your problems (because it's a whole lot easier than evaluating the reasons YOU failed), and the "rich boss" is an easy target.

You've been on these forums long enough to know that most rich people are not born that way, but come from modest means.  You know, those frugal "Millionaire Next Door" types.

I dare say a lot of the people who read these forums are those "rich" you seek to vilify.

They did NOT "have an advantage over you."  I suspect many of us "Millionaire Next Door" folks started out in similar circumstances to you.  Some of us probably started with less than you did. 

So forgive us if we roll our eyes when you start in with the "evil privileged rich people all lied, cheated, and stole to get ahead and live their lives only to screw the poor" routine.  The fact is, most rich folks worked hard in school, got good jobs, lived frugally, saved and invested (how is that "evil?").  Only a small percentage of the millionaires in this country were born to wealth.

I don't hate "the poor."  I go out of my way to help the poor who want to help themselves.  That includes educating them and helping them avoid stupid decisions (like owning a smart phone if they make minimum wage- that is nothing short of ridiculous).  I suspect many of the others on these forums who have risen from modest means do the same.

But I do get a bit sick of the whiners who have not succeeded blaming those of us who have succeeded for what are, really, their own failures.

If you have not been able to succeed, don't blame those more successful than yourself, LOOK IN THE MIRROR to find the person most responsible for your position in life.

You don't know me, so I will forgive your ignorance.  I have a lot of money.  It's just that I didn't always have a lot of money.  The reason why I didn't have a lot of money was because I was born into it and there are an awful lot of people who wanted to keep it that way.  That's reality and all the evidence you need are most of the comments on this thread.

The reason I escaped from poverty is because of government programs and the help of my church.  People commenting on this thread want to remove both of those escape routes for poor people.  So, yes, most rich people are evil, which is something the Bible noted repeatedly thousands of years ago.

[ChrisLansing]

Cars/tractors replaced horses and physical human labor.  That's been a huge benefit to society.

It has certainly been a huge benefit to human society.

 

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time following your thinking regarding animals and mechanization.   Are you saying that mechanization of farms has been a detriment to animals?   

[randymarsh]

Cars/tractors replaced horses and physical human labor.  That's been a huge benefit to society.

It has certainly been a huge benefit to human society.

 

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time following your thinking regarding animals and mechanization.   Are you saying that mechanization of farms has been a detriment to animals?

I think they're referring to the negative environmental impact of motorized transport: burning gasoline & large amounts of land dedicated to parking and expanding highways.

[beltim]

Oh, I see.  So then you go with the first option I described earlier – that Google is just unlucky over 1.7 million miles ?

If I remember, I'll try to dig out one of my college text books to determine which statistical test I need to do to determine if the incidence rate of wrecks between Google's cars and the nation at large is really different.

I can tell you that they're not on completely different orders of magnitude though. Remember that we're talking about 12 accidents over 1.7 million miles meaning that each accident still has a huge marginal impact on the incidence rate.

We know that one accident was caused by another driver rear-ending Google's car and Google has said that another was while the human Google employee, not the software, was driving. So we're down to 10. Sure you could assume Google is lying and covering up the other 10, but at this point we're only a small handful of accidents away from being right in line with the national average.

The cars have been driven about 1 million miles in automated mode, though, so you need to use that denominator if you subtract out when there was a human driver.  I don't see the validity in subtracting when the car was rear-ended to determine whether Google was lucky or not.  And the average accident rate is about 1.8 per million miles (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/safety-in-numbers-charting-traffic-safety-and-fatality-data).  So, it's most of an order of magnitude difference.

Sure, it's possible that this isn't a large enough data set to say that it's not more dangerous.  But no statistical analysis will let you transform a higher accident rate into a meaningful claim that Google's self-driving car is less dangerous.

Now that I think about it, that accident rate seems way too low.  But that's the best data I could find.

[lithy]

Cars/tractors replaced horses and physical human labor.  That's been a huge benefit to society.

It has certainly been a huge benefit to human society.

 

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time following your thinking regarding animals and mechanization.   Are you saying that mechanization of farms has been a detriment to animals?

He is saying that since the loss of work for horses, the horse population has shrunk to under 20% of the peak in the 20s. 

Horses mostly don't control their own reproduction, so instead of continuing to reproduce exponentially and having something like 200 million mostly out of work horses alive today, there are just a few million horses that exist mostly for leisure and recreational activities.

[kathrynd]

Cars/tractors replaced horses and physical human labor.  That's been a huge benefit to society.

It has certainly been a huge benefit to human society.

 

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time following your thinking regarding animals and mechanization.   Are you saying that mechanization of farms has been a detriment to animals?

He is saying that since the loss of work for horses, the horse population has shrunk to under 20% of the peak in the 20s. 

Horses mostly don't control their own reproduction, so instead of continuing to reproduce exponentially and having something like 200 million mostly out of work horses alive today, there are just a few million horses that exist mostly for leisure and recreational activities.

hmm...similar to people who refuse to provide for themselves, and expect everyone else to provide for them?

Those numbers also need to shrink.

[golden1]

So, yes, most rich people are evil, which is something the Bible noted repeatedly thousands of years ago.

Isn't the quote "Money is the root of all evil"?  I don't see rich people themselves as evil, I see them as self-interested, which is fairly rational behavior.  The problem isn't that the rich want more money, it is that the policies that they want to put in place to get more money in the short term seem to have a negative effect on the overall ability for other people to gain wealth or even to live decent productive lives. 

Some rich people argue that this will, in the end, destroy wealth.  Nick Hanauer comes to mind:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.VYLCoPlVhBd

[arebelspy]

It's not money, it's the love of money that's the root of all evil.

[Midwest]

So, yes, most rich people are evil, which is something the Bible noted repeatedly thousands of years ago.

Isn't the quote "Money is the root of all evil"?  I don't see rich people themselves as evil, I see them as self-interested, which is fairly rational behavior.  The problem isn't that the rich want more money, it is that the policies that they want to put in place to get more money in the short term seem to have a negative effect on the overall ability for other people to gain wealth or even to live decent productive lives. 

Some rich people argue that this will, in the end, destroy wealth.  Nick Hanauer comes to mind:  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.VYLCoPlVhBd

Very interesting article.  Thanks for posting.

In all seriousness, I've heard things about Amazon's wages.  That's kind of ironic considering he was an early stage investor.

[mathlete]

hmm...similar to people who refuse to provide for themselves, and expect everyone else to provide for them?

Those numbers also need to shrink.

Surely you understand that the horse population didn't shrink because the horses refused to provide for themselves. It shrank because there is no longer anything they can do to provide for themselves. Human beings are many times more capable of horses, but the same thing is going to happen to human beings. We're going to bump up against our limitations.

[mathlete]

The cars have been driven about 1 million miles in automated mode, though, so you need to use that denominator if you subtract out when there was a human driver.  I don't see the validity in subtracting when the car was rear-ended to determine whether Google was lucky or not. And the average accident rate is about 1.8 per million miles (http://www.caranddriver.com/features/safety-in-numbers-charting-traffic-safety-and-fatality-data).  So, it's most of an order of magnitude difference.

With regards to the bolded: It is definitively not the Google car's fault that it got rear-ended. Any accident in which a human being is a fault is a strike against team humanity.

Your postulating that Google is lying about the cause of the accidents and I'm saying that we know that 2 of the 12 were human error so they need to be thrown out in a comparison with human drivers. We starting with a worst case scenario that Google's self-driving cars have caused 10 accidents.

[mathlete]

1) When it comes to human life, regulators err completely on the side of safety.  If a human makes the truck safer, they will be there.  Look at all the safety features on cars (backing camera's come to mind).  The safety police will make it so.  In this instance, I tend to agree with them.

Hmm... this thought is kind of predicated on the belief that regulators will take any available measure to increase safety. Why then is the speed limit 20 miles an hour in school zones? Would 19 MPH not be marginally safer? Is the selection of speed limits in increments of 5 not soley related to the fact that we count in base-10, which is probably in itself because we have 5 fingers on each hand?

Back-up cameras remain an optional safety feature on cars. If we're talking about safety features on cars that could and would save lives, I have a suggestion: Interlock.

Interlock prevents people who have been drinking from starting their cars. That could save something like 10,000 lives a year, but yet regulators have prioritized our freedom to start our cars whenever we want over those lives.

Also, working off the assumption that regulators will always regulate in favor of safety, won't they outlaw human drivers once the software is better (and they will be better)?

If not, then we've set up a scenario in which safe software drivers require a human babysitter, but dangerous human drivers do not require software assistance. That's irrational.

2) If companies wanted their trucks to run 24/7, they could require driver teams or make that happen other ways.  To my knowledge, that hasn't happened so maybe the advantage is less than you think as it relates to the trucks running 24/7

Well as of today, that would require an additional 33% be added to labor costs at minimum. Add on top of that the overhead cost of scheduling such hand-offs. With a self-driving semi, the marginal cost of running for those extra 8 hours is a few cents of electricity.

I think we have a long way to go before that happens.

Clearly I disagree. =D

Thanks for chatting with me about this by the way.

[cerebus]

Surely you understand that the horse population didn't shrink because the horses refused to provide for themselves. It shrank because there is no longer anything they can do to provide for themselves. Human beings are many times more capable of horses, but the same thing is going to happen to human beings. We're going to bump up against our limitations.

Horses were essentially a form of machinery that was used in the service of humanity. It's a very key distinction. Machines have enormously greater efficiency than horses for everything, and humans for many things; but they are still providing the same utility as horses. Since they serve man and not the other way around, it is conceivable that even as they make many jobs redundant, their usefulness will improve the overall quality of human life, as they are designed to do.

It will depend on how efficiently society will be able to reorganize itself around new forms of wealth creation and the concept of earned wages, to ensure that massive inequalities don't form. But for instance, one thing machines do extremely well is serve the poor: robotics create cheaper goods, replace dangerous tasks, expedite and secure transactions, and so on. The poor are happy to buy mass-produced goods, whereas the wealthy can afford artisanal products. The wealth may flow upwards, but the benefit to the lower classes of machine automated processes is unquestionable.

[mathlete]

It will depend on how efficiently society will be able to reorganize itself around new forms of wealth creation and the concept of earned wages, to ensure that massive inequalities don't form. But for instance, one thing machines do extremely well is serve the poor: robotics create cheaper goods, replace dangerous tasks, expedite and secure transactions, and so on. The poor are happy to buy mass-produced goods, whereas the wealthy can afford artisanal products. The wealth may flow upwards, but the benefit to the lower classes of machine automated processes is unquestionable.

Agreed. Technology has almost universally made life better for everyone. Top to bottom. Part of this though is because even when a function performed by the lower class was eliminated or became many times more efficient, there was always something else the person could move on to.

To put it anecdotally, if it used to take 5 people to plow one field but technology allowed 1 person to plow one field, in times of scarcity, the obvious course of action was to now have 5 people plowing five fields because there was demand for five fields worth of production.

But as we both, A.) Move towards abundance, and B.) Move towards more capable machines, the above story won't play out the same way anymore.

I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head with this statement:

It will depend on how efficiently society will be able to reorganize itself around new forms of wealth creation and the concept of earned wages

[mathlete]

By the way I should probably mention that there is an extremely good short film (15 Minutes) on this very subjection on YouTube called "Humans Need Not Apply"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

The guy in the video actually addresses the whole horse population thing which is something I completely forgot about until re-watching the video last night.

[Midwest]

1) When it comes to human life, regulators err completely on the side of safety.  If a human makes the truck safer, they will be there.  Look at all the safety features on cars (backing camera's come to mind).  The safety police will make it so.  In this instance, I tend to agree with them.

Hmm... this thought is kind of predicated on the belief that regulators will take any available measure to increase safety. Why then is the speed limit 20 miles an hour in school zones? Would 19 MPH not be marginally safer? Is the selection of speed limits in increments of 5 not soley related to the fact that we count in base-10, which is probably in itself because we have 5 fingers on each hand?

Back-up cameras remain an optional safety feature on cars. If we're talking about safety features on cars that could and would save lives, I have a suggestion: Interlock.

My understanding is new cars are required to have back up camera's.  This costly feature will save 70 lives per year.  If you are impacted by one of the 70 deaths that's great.  I think it's nuts.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/179635-car-backup-cameras-are-now-mandatory-okay-for-saving-lives-even-better-for-music-and-navigation

Interlock prevents people who have been drinking from starting their cars. That could save something like 10,000 lives a year, but yet regulators have prioritized our freedom to start our cars whenever we want over those lives.

If you get caught driving wasted, put interlock on the car. 

Interlock isn't on every car for the following reasons a) some sanity has prevailed b) cost c) DUI is an industry that brings in lots of money to the police, attorney's and crusaders (Madd).

I'll give you my anti-safety police rant. 

I've never had a DUI and don't drive on local roads after having more than 2 12 oz beers with a meal.   I had that view even in college. I'm not a drunk driver by any stretch.  I've looked at the charts and always make sure to stay well under the limit.  I'm giving that background, because true drunk driving is awful and dangerous.

Having said that, if we used science to test drunk driving limits, the BAC never would have dropped to .08 and could potentially be higher that .10 (it used to be .15).  The cost/benefit of having such a low limit (.08) simply don't exist.  We also wouldn't arrest people on bicycles and lawnmowers. 

But then again, we are putting back up camera's on every car in the US to save 70 lives per year, using police to enforce helmet laws for kids, and outlawing soda's that are too big.

The safety-police will not allow 18 wheeler's w/o a human monitoring their operation in the foreseeable future.