There is a reason it’s faster, simpler and cheaper to ship stuff via air versus ports in cases where it seems to not make sense. (I recently dealt with this in olive oil and glassware.) The idea that we can run inefficient ports so someone can manually pilot a crane without any cost is ridiculous.
I’m not sure jobs should be the priority over progress.
You believe you have seen no benefits from industrialisation, electrification and digitisation?
In the entire history of the world automation has never caused employment reduction, only a shift.
Yes. Your Econ 101 class may have taught you jobs will shift. Econ 101 does not give you the case study of a 45 year old worker who finds themselves having to restart their career.
So yes, across many years a shift in employment happens.
To the guy who lost his job and now has to figure out what to do, he risks being unable to find a career anywhere near where he was at.
Ideally we would have retraining programs that would meaningfully train and place people into new jobs, but efforts are largely performative.
Also, what's your alternative plan? Just freeze all jobs at current level of technology, because we can never make any changes?
Most ports in the world are automated - they are literally doing pointless busy work!
And employers know that, and (other than contracting work) they'll usually hire with the expectation of rapid training, and it's not an issue.
That hasn't been my experience. Most hiring managers I've had interviews with are in a hurry and want people with experience now. Good luck getting the job if you have to do a code screen against people with years of experience with that language.
Assuming that because someone may arrive home with some debris and grease does not mean the work is directly transferable.
Similar when expanding. Fill the new positions with automation.
I agree with you, but I think Amazon has shown how much it values warehouse workers.