Mines May Eliminate More Than Half Their Human Workers Within 10 Years (computerworld.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes ComputerWorld: In the next decade, the mining industry may lose more than half of its jobs to automation, according to a new report... This industry is adopting self-driving trucks, automated loaders and automated drilling and tunnel-boring systems. It is also testing fully autonomous long-distance trains, which carry materials from the mine to a port...

A broader question is whether mining is a bellwether for other industries. There's no clear answer, but what Aaron Cosbey, a development economist and a report author, can say is this: "Where you can find robotic replacements for human labor you tend to do it." Cosbey estimates that automation will replace 40% to 80% of the workers at a mine...
Driverless technology can increase output up to 20%, while decreasing fuel consumption up to 15%, according to the article. "This will increase demand for people with IT skills who can set up and operate the automation systems -- but at far smaller numbers than the people automation displaces."

Comments

When automation is cheaper than people...

[Anonymous Coward]

... it's not going to be a good day for people. Less safety and environmental requirements for non-people, and if they get crushed/buried there's no real negative press. Designed correctly, they can be rebuilt/repaired/dusted off and the work continued.

Re:When automation is cheaper than people...

[Ol Olsoc]

Yes their pay is going down. To $0. In these systems one person oversees multiple vehicles so they can get rid of many people. And of course that's not saying the drivers are able to transfer over to operating the remote controlled vehicles so it's possible that all of the drivers are let go and new people are brought in.

Over time, all jobs are made obsolete. The longshoreman career was made obsolete because of automation. The people who made vacuum tubes we made mostly redundant becauseof the transistor. The railroad workers faced a big reduction when we switched from steam locos to diesel - steam locomotives are tremendous powerful bits of technology, but are filthy and take insane levels of maintenance.

Two tractor steam plowing has come and gone, nothing stays the same.

Even over my career, instead of complaining about my jerb becoming obsolete, I adapted, learned new things, and didn't insist that what I originally did would continue forever. Where do we say - enough? No more technology, no more progress?

Re:When automation is cheaper than people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Physical labor was optimized, not automated. The former has happened. The latter has never happened. The two are mistakenly equated so much it's laughable.

All you really said is the "I've got mine screw you" slogan, oblivious to how close you are to the edge.

Fortunately "close" is relative; yes, we're inches away, your job is "exclusive" by the skin of its teeth, but it'll take generations to properly tick the last inch.

Yes, We'll be fine. You'll die thinking you're well off, even your kids probably will. It's the 10 billion ahead trying to be simultaneous roborepairmen that are fucked.

Re:When automation is cheaper than people...

[ChrisMaple]

what happens when governments don't have a plan to deal with large masses of unemployed

So speaks the collectivist, the man who can think of no way of fixing things that doesn't involve government.

It is the responsibility of the individual, not the government, to find a way to feed, clothe, and shelter himself. The responsibilities of the government in that regard are limited to 2 things: getting out of the way and protecting property rights.

The government does hundreds of things that cause unemployment. Let's say I find a way to provide excellent haircuts in 2 minutes and choose to charge $2 per haircut. It's probably illegal in every state for me to do that; I'd need a license, probably multiple licenses, and I might even be required to take classes and be certified by the state. I'd need to file and pay personal and business taxes. I'd be subject to inspections and probably fined for trivial things. I'd have to post my license on the wall, and post copies of certain federal and state laws on a wall.

One thing that guarantees unemployment is minimum wage laws. That violation of rights keeps both potential employers and employees from reaching a profitable agreement if the potential employee can't do work worth the minimum wage.

If you can run a vacuum cleaner, scrub a floor, rake leaves, or keep a child from hurting himself, you're capable of doing work that you can get paid for in a free society. Hell, I've seen Walmart greeters that can just barely breathe and even they have a job. In a society encumbered by government shackles, not so much.

This is gonna happen fast

[rsilvergun]

we just finished prosecuting a mine exec for ignoring safety. It was a big deal because he'll do some jail time, which has almost never happened. The saddest thing is that somewhere is somebody who'll argue we shouldn't have prosecuted that guy because this is what will happen. E.g. it's better to have a job you get killed at than no job at all. Even when there's no good reason for that job to exist anymore. People just can't get over the idea that if you don't work you don't eat.

Re:Not if Trump wins

[mark-t]

As the price of automation continues to drop, I seriously doubt that Trump, or anyone, would be able to prevent it without creating new and increasingly heavy tax burdens for companies that use automation so that it is less expensive for them to hire people instead. This will, in turn, make any products that are produced through automation (most consumer goods these days) substantially more expensive. Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, one should think that this is an unintended consequence, because if it is not, it would speak volumes about how ignorant Trump might be to those who aren't in the top 20% or so of income earners, which wouldn't even give him a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election, so it's pretty clear he'd have to at least *pretend* to care about everybody else... and making the price of most things go up is not going to accomplish that.

If you increase people's wages to try and counter the effect of goods,, then all you do is make automation more attractive, so in the end, I don't think Trump can actually change it or stop it.

Re:what drives automation

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Are you serious? Mining is and always has been the POSTER CHILD for worker exploitation. Your notion that the government is somehow trampling on the poor put-upon mine owners is laughable on its face. Are you choosing to forget that hundreds of workers were killed (less than 100 years ago) by company goons for trying to unionize? Are you choosing to forget the thousands of miners who have died due to the incredibly lax and callous safety practices of mine owners, both from cave-ins and from firedamp?

Re:Mines are almost completely self contained

[ShanghaiBill]

So why do we let national resources be private land?

In America, if you own the land, you own the mineral resources under it. Many other countries nationalize mineral resources. Nearly all those countries are poorer and less productive than America, especially in the mining sector.

Resource extraction should not be profitable for individuals, it should be profitable for the nation as a whole.

Karl Marx would have been in total agreement. Your idea has been tried. You might want to read some history books to see how it turned out.