[kenberg]

akwoo, on 2024-October-07, 20:32, said:

Votes for Trump are just protest votes protesting the necessity to have some smarts to have a future in our society, and in particular the disappearance of jobs that one can do just by following directions.

I don't see how to fix that.

Maybe some discussion about this?

The longshoremen have been in the news. My father, 50 and more years ago, installed weatherstripping. Neither job requires a college degree (my father finished eighth grade) , both jobs require learning some things and taking your job seriously. At times my father would hire someone to work with him, but then the guy would show up late with a hangover and my father would fire him.

OK, jobs have disappeared, part of the longshoremen strike was to get agreement not to replace them robots. So yes, we need to pay attention to the needs of those who will not be going to college. Let's do that. Electing Trump would not be the best solution.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on 2024-October-08, 07:29, said:

Maybe some discussion about this?

The longshoremen have been in the news. My father, 50 and more years ago, installed weatherstripping. Neither job requires a college degree (my father finished eighth grade) , both jobs require learning some things and taking your job seriously. At times my father would hire someone to work with him, but then the guy would show up late with a hangover and my father would fire him.

OK, jobs have disappeared, part of the longshoremen strike was to get agreement not to replace them robots. So yes, we need to pay attention to the needs of those who will not be going to college. Let's do that. Electing Trump would not be the best solution.

Over the past week or so, I've seen a bunch of discussions around what would be necessary to replace longshoremen with automated systems...

From what I have seen, this really isn't practical.

It is absolutely possible to build ports that are much more automated / require many fewer laborers, however, this isn't the sort of thing that can be retrofitted. At least not easily. All of the ports that folks are seeing that are fully automated represent new construction over in China.

So, I suspect that most of this talk about "automation" is a distraction

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on 2024-October-08, 10:43, said:

Over the past week or so, I've seen a bunch of discussions around what would be necessary to replace longshoremen with automated systems...

From what I have seen, this really isn't practical.

It is absolutely possible to build ports that are much more automated / require many fewer laborers, however, this isn't the sort of thing that can be retrofitted. At least not easily. All of the ports that folks are seeing that are fully automated represent new construction over in China.

So, I suspect that most of this talk about "automation" is a distraction

What you say sounds sensible. Maybe this:

Next year longshore work will be much the same as it is now. Thirty years from now things will be very different. A thirty year old guy currently working as a longshoreman might be thinking about this. Thirty years should be long enough so that plans can be made. But I think planning is important. I want the guy to have a good job when he is 60. Maybe not exactly the same job.

[akwoo]

hrothgar, on 2024-October-08, 10:43, said:

Over the past week or so, I've seen a bunch of discussions around what would be necessary to replace longshoremen with automated systems...

From what I have seen, this really isn't practical.

It is absolutely possible to build ports that are much more automated / require many fewer laborers, however, this isn't the sort of thing that can be retrofitted. At least not easily. All of the ports that folks are seeing that are fully automated represent new construction over in China.

So, I suspect that most of this talk about "automation" is a distraction

You're talking short term practice.

I'm talking about a long term trend, a trend that has taken routine labor out of the center of our society to something that everyone sees will be mostly gone in a couple generations. It's not about being able to afford rent and groceries - it's about going from feeling like they were an important contributor to the country to feeling like they are some largely irrelevant sideshow getting the scraps that are left over from all the stuff the smarties are managing to do. Take the longshoremen - whether or not their jobs are actually replaced with machines, they're going from being a vital part of getting stuff to their neighbors to people who aren't actually needed (because a robot could do the job) but still have a job only because either the union negotiated it for them or because the company finds them cheaper than the robot. How humiliating does that feel?

Trump being an idiot is actually an asset to him. His supporters don't want a smart President, because they don't think a smart President understands how to make the country work for dumb people. They're tired of the country being run by smart people.

(And I want to emphasize this is not about education but rather about the ability to figure stuff out on the fly, manage a significant amount of information, and learn on the job. It's the difference between the Macdonalds employee who can just manage the fry cooker and the one who can juggle and concurrently manage four different orders going through the drive-through line.)

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2024-October-08, 07:05, said:

A question: On the 60 minutes presentation, did they something akin to "We interiewed many many Republicams and they all, every one of them, think in the manner that we are showing."?

We know that many Republicans believe, or at least pretend to believe, that Trump won the lection in 2020, that Jan 6 was just a simple tourist event, and so on. But we also know that some people who have long voted Republican will at least not be voting for Trump, and some will be voting for Harris. Perhaps each and every R in Maricopa County county believes that the 2020 election was stolen. Or perhaps many but not all of them do. Did 60 minutes clarify this? Maybe time was too short, they would have needed 65 minites to discuss such details.

To answer you question, no, they looked at the Rebublican party writ large, including two who were elected to their positions after the 2020 election.
The only way for me to talk of this is to show it to you:

https://www.youtube....h?v=WaL0eCSFHGU

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2024-October-08, 17:55, said:

To answer you question, no, they looked at the Rebublican party writ large, including two who were elected to their positions after the 2020 election.
The only way for me to talk of this is to show it to you:

https://www.youtube....h?v=WaL0eCSFHGU

A very interesting segment, thanks.The situation is truly frightening. Last night (Oct 8) PBS had an extended interview with four lifelong Republicans who will not be voting for Trump. Three of them will be voting for Harris, the fourth has not yet decided whether she will vote for Harris, she might.. I didn't get the idea that any of them were about to become enthusiastic Democrats, they simply recognize Trump for what he is and they cannot vote for him. As we all lknow, and the 60 minute broadcast makes clear, these four are very much in the minority of the Republicam party. But they are a very important minority. If we are going to get through this , we need them.

I am reasonably, not wildly, enthusiastic about Harris, less so about Walz, but I usually vote Dem. Some Republicans, as above, will vote for Harris. Are there enough? I sure hope so. In 1964 I voted for Lyndon Johnson but I did not see Barry Goldwater as an existential threat. In 1966 there was a serious possibility that I could be drafted and sent off to fight in Viet Nam. I made no plans to run off to Canada. The upcoming election is seriiously scary. I am not packing my bagsm but I am worried.

[barmar]

There's a good political ad that lists a number of prominent Republicans who are endorsing Harris, including several who were members of Trump's administration.

But it's hard to know how influential this will be. Getting fired by Trump essentially made them persona non grata to his followers.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2024-October-09, 14:20, said:

There's a good political ad that lists a number of prominent Republicans who are endorsing Harris, including several who were members of Trump's administration.

But it's hard to know how influential this will be. Getting fired by Trump essentially made them persona non grata to his followers.

Prominent Republicans have a responsibility here. Trump won't change. Biden and Harris are taking money from FEMA and giving it to illegal immigrants instead of using that money to help hurricane Helene victims? Republican leaders need to say whether this is true or false. Cowardice should not be an option. They need to be held responsible for what they do or do not say. History is full of examples where people should have spoken up, where it might well have made a difference.Yes, it's a tough situation but really they must speak up. And be held accountable if they do not.

[shyams]

I think the Harris initiative to highlight the huge nos. of Republicans who endorse her is great. However, I really don't understand why (among all these people) she chose to give more prominence to Dick Cheney's endorsement.

Dick Cheney was villain #1 for all Democrats when he was VP. Presumably a fair share of Independents & Republicans also continue to carry some ill-will for him. Yet someone in her campaign must be telling her that it's a great idea! Really?!

[awm]

Most Americans don’t know who these Republicans who endorsed Harris are, even many of those who had major roles in the Trump administration aren’t household names. People know who Dick Cheney is, and claims that he’s “not a real Republican” or the like will go nowhere.

I agree that he’s not well liked by Democrats, but that goes hand in hand with unimpeachable Republican credentials.

[hrothgar]

shyams, on 2024-October-09, 20:38, said:

I really don't understand why (among all these people) she chose to give more prominence to Dick Cheney's endorsement.

He is - by far - the highest profile Republican to endorse Harris
Other than George Bush, I don't think that there is a more significant Republican endorsement to be had

And, as Adam mentions, he is a hardline conservative.
This draws attention to the breadth of the anti Trump coalition.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2024-October-09, 20:38, said:

However, I really don't understand why (among all these people) she chose to give more prominence to Dick Cheney's endorsement.

Dick Cheney was villain #1 for all Democrats when he was VP. Presumably a fair share of Independents & Republicans also continue to carry some ill-will for him. Yet someone in her campaign must be telling her that it's a great idea! Really?!

Yes, really.

Dick Cheney represented the hard core right, and as a former VP, he is the highest ranking Republican alive who has said he will vote for Harris. GW Bush, has said he won't vote for Convicted Felon Trump, but has not said he will vote for Harris. Same for the living Republican VP's, Dan Quayle and Mike Pence.

It makes no difference for Democrats if a Republican supports Harris. For independents and Republicans, they're not going to vote for Dick Cheney, but if undecided, they may take a look and question why Dick Cheney would be endorsing a Democrat instead of Trump. If they take an honest look, they will realize the danger in voting for Trump and support Harris.

[johnu]

shyams, on 2024-October-09, 20:38, said:

However, I really don't understand why (among all these people) she chose to give more prominence to Dick Cheney's endorsement.

Dick Cheney was villain #1 for all Democrats when he was VP. Presumably a fair share of Independents & Republicans also continue to carry some ill-will for him. Yet someone in her campaign must be telling her that it's a great idea! Really?!

Yes, really.

Dick Cheney represented the hard core right, and as a former VP, he is the highest ranking Republican alive (except Trump) who has said he will vote for Harris. GW Bush, has said he won't vote for Convicted Felon Trump, but has not said he will vote for Harris. Same for the living Republican VP's, Dan Quayle and Mike Pence.

It makes no difference for Democrats if a Republican supports Harris. For independents and Republicans, they're not going to vote for Dick Cheney, but if undecided, they may take a look and question why Dick Cheney would be endorsing a Democrat instead of Trump. If they take an honest look, they will realize the danger in voting for Trump and support Harris.

[thepossum]

Apparently it's still too close to call (remarkable in itself)
I hope all analysts have run enough scenarios
I speak as citizen of one insiginficant entity on the global stage