Driverless trucks move all iron ore at Rio Tinto's Pilbara mines, in world first - Polidicks

[QUOTE=cathal6606;49982847]What about lag?[/QUOTE] They have it covered. I also remember them saying that in the case of an evacuation in their headquarters, there's another building close by with a similar set up so they can just continue with their remote operations.

This is the future of mining. All you people saying they're going to lose jobs, well that already happened when China found a cheap source of coal and the AUD went back to 70 US cents. This is also happening with semi trailers too, Mercedes and their parent company already have prototypes in Europe and America: [video=youtube;XZxZC0lgOlc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxZC0lgOlc[/video] [video=youtube;IKGDTjiVqWk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKGDTjiVqWk[/video]

[QUOTE=Buck.;49983224]Driving them mining dump trucks pays really good money as well. It's like $25 Australlian dollaroos per hour.[/QUOTE] It would have to be more than that. People here get paid that much to pack shelves in supermarkets, and that's not even late at night or on weekends. Apparently many of the miners can earn in the six figures. Then, many of them finance expensive cars and get mortgages on expensive houses, and act surprised when their job is made redundant and they suddenly can't pay for all of these obligations (mining is a dying industry here; the days of the mining boom are long over, job security is awful). These jobs would have had to go eventually anyways. Mining is on its deathbed here. Even if these automated trucks weren't a thing, many drivers would find themselves retrenched over the next few years regardless. Might as well make it a swift death for these jobs.

[QUOTE=Maloof?;49982025]Companies pay less tax because that's how capitalism works. The primary way that Governments encourage companies to set up shop in their countries is by offering reduced tax rates. It's how the NZ government got big film companies (and local ones) to do their work here before the big 'New Zealand is beautiful' period started. It's how companies often choose which country to base their operations in. And when a company bases its operations in your country, you end up with more jobs, a higher GDP, a fatter economy and generally a more affluent and better educated population. If special tax rates suddenly go out the window, a company is just going to get up and move somewhere else. And unless these mining companies are digging uranium or diamonds or some other strictly geographically limited resource, there's very little stopping them from finding a country that will enable them to operate with more financial efficiency. [/QUOTE] Since you're from NZ i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you probably don't really know how mines have been operating in Australia up until now. Firstly, i understand your argument, but in Australia the mining industry pays a 13.9% tax rate. Sound fair? Well, the Australian average tax for companies is 30%. Australia is on the tail end of one of our biggest resource booms in history, and we aren't really getting much for it, considering, on top of the already low tax rate, 80% of the money raised by these mining companies goes overseas without a single dime of it being taxed. The mining companies are expected to make a 600 BILLION dollar profit over the next few years, although apparently they're just scraping by and taking a portion is insanity. They pay a piddly six cents to the dollar in taxes while 80 cents goes overseas to foreign billionaires. Those fuckers only make up 4% of our economy anyway. Job creation isn't really a decent argument for keeping them here anyway, as they only employ, total, roughly 46,000 people, and they're obviously taking steps to reduce that number even further. Childcare is a bigger job creator in Australia than that. Imagine, little people who can't help shitting themselves are better job creators than Palmer, Rhineheart and all the other mining moguls. Not to mention the $1700 a year the average taxpayer pays in subsidies to the mining companies. Which includes, and i shit you not, paying for 100% of all the fuel used on their mining sites. Next, i have no idea why you think that mining companies are simply able to pick up and go move overseas. Even former liberal minister and economist john hewson was quoted as saying "You can't just pack up an aluminium smelter and move it to indonesia." There's a fuckload of money that has been sunk into infrastructure for the mining companies. Mining is a heavily geographically dependant industry because profitable seams aren't around every doorstep, if they were, the Mining companies would have all fled the country when Labor introduced a 30% tax on all profits over $75M, which is more than generous and really more than what they deserve. This was before Liberal heroically came in and dismantled the Mining tax for no particular reason other than the mining companies had their campaign money cocks shoved so far Tony's anus he could taste cock when he was eating breakfast. Fuck the mining companies.

Uh, no. Tax rate in Australia for all for-profit business is 30%, mining companies included. There is no special tax rate for mining companies. Now, most mining companies receive tax credits back on their diesel fuel but that's because fuel is taxed to pay for roads which mining companies don't use - farmers get the same tax credit. Some mining companies also get tax credits for mineral and petroleum exploration from state governments (such as here in SA). On top of the tax, mining companies also pay royalties to the state governments. Unlike taxes though, royalties are a percentage of revenue, rather than profits. Also, most of the Australian stock exchange is owned by Super Funds at [url=https://www.superannuation.asn.au/resources/superannuation-statistics]A$2t[/url] (yes, trillion). The ASX is worth A$1.5t for comparison. Australians probably own a large chunk of that and overseas assets as well. As for aluminium smelters, well actually, yes they have packed up and moved overseas. Electricity is just too expensive in Australia to justify making aluminium here.

[QUOTE=Robman8908;49981868]Something about that line really rubs me the wrong way...[/QUOTE] ya i know, considering these things take probably an hour to fill up with fuel, and weeks to change a tire, i don't think the biological component is really the hold up [editline]22nd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=RoboChimp;49983401]This is the future of mining. All you people saying they're going to lose jobs, well that already happened when China found a cheap source of coal and the AUD went back to 70 US cents. This is also happening with semi trailers too, Mercedes and their parent company already have prototypes in Europe and America: [video=youtube;XZxZC0lgOlc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxZC0lgOlc[/video] [/QUOTE] i think what they'll find is that semis tend to carry way too many valuble goods to be cost effective, all it takes is one group to start hacking into those things to rip shit off, then the whole thing goes off the rails. Semi theft is already a massive problem, removing the driver makes these things even more subseptable

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49983788]That 1:1 ratio is absolutely not going to hold up once automation adoption goes into full swing, we're not talking about a million jobs lost, we're talking about tens of millions, and that's just in the US alone, we've never seen anything like this before. The only new jobs we'll see created will be few in number and in areas like automation maintenance which will certainly require a degree, something that'll be far out of reach of the overwhelming majority of people being replaced. And before you say something like "but look at the industrial revolution" that is not comparable at all, it was totally different situation, the unskilled masses were able to transfer relatively smoothly from agriculture to the industry and service sectors, but with automation there will be nowhere to go for the vast majority of unskilled & low skilled workers.[/QUOTE] Agreed. The problem is that few governments are even considering what will happen in the future. I haven't heard a word about automation enter into the headlines with the current US election race and I doubt we will hear about it. By the time it hits, it may be too late to do something about it. Honestly I think we're entering a world where a guaranteed minimum wage will have to come standard. [editline]22nd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;49983659]i think what they'll find is that semis tend to carry way too many valuble goods to be cost effective, all it takes is one group to start hacking into those things to rip shit off, then the whole thing goes off the rails. Semi theft is already a massive problem, removing the driver makes these things even more subseptable[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. One of things that is interested to read/watch is developments in physical security locks / tamper resistant methods for both shipping and computers.

[QUOTE=icarusfoundyou;49983823] Not necessarily. One of things that is interested to read/watch is developments in physical security locks / tamper resistant methods for both shipping and computers.[/QUOTE] Trucks have had GPS tracking, tamper seals, lojacks, and even satellite connected alarms for over a decade, semi theft is still a huge problem, the single biggest deterant is a trustworthy driver guarding his rig

[QUOTE=download;49983593]Uh, no. Tax rate in Australia for all for-profit business is 30%, mining companies included. There is no special tax rate for mining companies. Now, most mining companies receive tax credits back on their diesel fuel but that's because fuel is taxed to pay for roads which mining companies don't use - farmers get the same tax credit. Some mining companies also get tax credits for mineral and petroleum exploration from state governments (such as here in SA). On top of the tax, mining companies also pay royalties to the state governments. Unlike taxes though, royalties are a percentage of revenue, rather than profits. Also, most of the Australian stock exchange is owned by Super Funds at [url=https://www.superannuation.asn.au/resources/superannuation-statistics]A$2t[/url] (yes, trillion). The ASX is worth A$1.5t for comparison. Australians probably own a large chunk of that and overseas assets as well. As for aluminium smelters, well actually, yes they have packed up and moved overseas. Electricity is just too expensive in Australia to justify making aluminium here.[/QUOTE] 1. [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/19/mining-tax-its-time-for-all-australians-to-realise-they-are-being-ripped-off]No, the effective tax rate is still 13%.[/url] 2. We should be giving more money to the mining companies so they don't have to pay taxes on fuel while they plunder the Crown's natural resources, of which you and me are entitled to, for short term economic gain while simultaneously pushing all the money gained out of the Australian economy and into the international market? Oh yeah. I'm not arguing against farmers or fishermen getting that same tax credit. $2.2 Billion is going directly to the Mining industry for no good reason, and this increases their dependence on fossil fuels. [url=https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/ending_fossil_fuel_subsidies.pdf]Source.[/url] 3. Royalties are paid yes, but they are a piss poor amount compared to a decent tax, maxing out at around 5-10%. There's also "royalty free thresholds" so if they make enough money, they don't have to pay anymore tax. [url=https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industry/mining/applications-compliance/rents-royalties/royalties/calculating-mining/rates]Source 1[/url] [url=http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/energy-utilities-mining/mining/territories/australia.html#footnote-30]Source 2.[/url] Additionally, i've found this neat little source from a tax review from the Treasury which shows that, in 2001, mining companies paid about 40% of their profits to the government. As of 2009, this is not less than 20%. This is taxed profit, and it includes royalties. [url=http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_1/00_AFTS_final_report_consolidated.pdf]Major Source,[/url] [url=http://www.mining-tax.com.au/]Condensed source, graph thumbed below for convenience.[/url] [t]http://www.mining-tax.com.au/images/chart1.png[/t]

[QUOTE=Sableye;49983901]Trucks have had GPS tracking, tamper seals, lojacks, and even satellite connected alarms for over a decade, semi theft is still a huge problem, the single biggest deterant is a trustworthy driver guarding his rig[/QUOTE] You mean with a system where tracking shipments is probably done through some form of database software? So a shipment could sit in transit for 2-3 months with no status updates--and then once it reaches its destination if its been stolen you're basically fucked? Or where if some driver is siphoning gas you wouldn't catch it for a couple of months? With the rise of the Internet of Things it would be possible for companies to reduce fraud, theft and inefficiencies beyond what is possible now. How about if 0.001% of trucks that are jacked on a certain route then you don't use that route?

[QUOTE=Sableye;49983901]Trucks have had GPS tracking, tamper seals, lojacks, and even satellite connected alarms for over a decade, semi theft is still a huge problem, the single biggest deterant is a trustworthy driver guarding his rig[/QUOTE] You also have to consider though, that with a self-driving truck there will be less downtime. You don't have to sit and let the driver rest for x hours a day, you don't have to stop to eat or sleep or use the bathroom. The only time that truck will not be moving will be when it's getting fueled up or at the destination. There will be less opportunity for theft.

The greatest benefit of using driverless trucks however is the improved safety of staff. Less miners in the pit means less liability and potential workers compensation.

[QUOTE=The Aussie;49983928]1. [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/19/mining-tax-its-time-for-all-australians-to-realise-they-are-being-ripped-off]No, the effective tax rate is still 13%.[/url] 2. We should be giving more money to the mining companies so they don't have to pay taxes on fuel while they plunder the Crown's natural resources, of which you and me are entitled to, for short term economic gain while simultaneously pushing all the money gained out of the Australian economy and into the international market? Oh yeah. I'm not arguing against farmers or fishermen getting that same tax credit. $2.2 Billion is going directly to the Mining industry for no good reason, and this increases their dependence on fossil fuels. [url=https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/ending_fossil_fuel_subsidies.pdf]Source.[/url] 3. Royalties are paid yes, but they are a piss poor amount compared to a decent tax, maxing out at around 5-10%. There's also "royalty free thresholds" so if they make enough money, they don't have to pay anymore tax. [url=https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industry/mining/applications-compliance/rents-royalties/royalties/calculating-mining/rates]Source 1[/url] [url=http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/energy-utilities-mining/mining/territories/australia.html#footnote-30]Source 2.[/url] Additionally, i've found this neat little source from a tax review from the Treasury which shows that, in 2001, mining companies paid about 40% of their profits to the government. As of 2009, this is not less than 20%. This is taxed profit, and it includes royalties. [url=http://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_1/00_AFTS_final_report_consolidated.pdf]Major Source,[/url] [url=http://www.mining-tax.com.au/]Condensed source, graph thumbed below for convenience.[/url] [t]http://www.mining-tax.com.au/images/chart1.png[/t][/QUOTE] I'm not going to comment on anything else in your post, but point #1 is misleading. The company tax rate is 30% (28.5% for SMEs). The 13% effective tax rate you're speaking of is when people compare company tax paid against accounting profits. Which is a fallacy, as tax paid is determined by taxable income, not accounting profits. Accounting gross profits = revenue minus cost of sales Accounting net profits = gross profit minus operating expenses, tax paid, depreciation etc Taxable income = assessable income minus allowable deductions As you can see, accounting profits and taxable income are each different concepts. Discrepancies arise in things like what is revenue and what is assessable income, the fact that accounting profits are derived from accrual-based accounting while taxable income is derived from cash-based accounting, many companies use different depreciation schedules when calculating each of accounting profits and taxable income, and that allowable deductions are not necessarily the same as just cost of sales and operating expenses. So you are both right. The tax rate is 30%, the effective tax paid (for some companies) can be considered to be 13%. Sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

[QUOTE=Badballer;49984000]The greatest benefit of using driverless trucks however is the improved safety of staff. Less miners in the pit means less liability and potential workers compensation.[/QUOTE] It also means that likely every angle of the operation would be covered with cameras--which means a good record of events if anything does go wrong.

slowly turning into the humans from wall-e

My uncle is a trucker, he says he loves his job. As someone who loves driving, I can see the appeal. Although, driving on public roads is different from just being at some mines all the time, that seems like something that could drive you insane, like driving laps around a parking lot for hours. [editline]22nd March 2016[/editline] Oh, so it's dump trucks, not the usual run-of-the-mill semis. From the snippet in the OP I hadn't gotten that impression at all.

[QUOTE=dai;49981895]unmanning on-site mining tech is awesome, it may put existing giant mining truck drivers into a pinch but it's opening tech jobs to operate and maintain the equipment in a different manor[/QUOTE] Or it can be put offsite to some other company and no jobs are created? Further for any of these truck drivers to get anywhere they have to get a college education now? In the states we already have too many STEM majors; I doubt its any different in other continents. You're not opening up jobs, you're taking them away. Don't try to pretty this up.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;49983788]That 1:1 ratio is absolutely not going to hold up once automation adoption goes into full swing, we're not talking about a million jobs lost, we're talking about tens of millions, and that's just in the US alone, we've never seen anything like this before. The only new jobs we'll see created will be few in number and in areas like automation maintenance which will certainly require a degree, something that'll be far out of reach of the overwhelming majority of people being replaced. And before you say something like "but look at the industrial revolution" that is not comparable at all, it was totally different situation, the unskilled masses were able to transfer relatively smoothly from agriculture to the industry and service sectors, but with automation there will be nowhere to go for the vast majority of unskilled & low skilled workers.[/QUOTE] I don't get what you mean by it being different considering that it's been a continuous process ongoing for over two centuries. Since when the hell are we in threat of automation getting rid of all the jobs when there are still millions of people who grow crops on farms today by hand and sell it to the market and actually make a bigger profit than wealthy western farms mired in debt? New jobs are being created as fast as old ones are made obsolete, this is a basic fact of economics. It's not really possible for robots to replace everything because there are a lot of jobs where humans have a advantage and to outdo them requires the kind of research expenditure that civilization is incapable of sustaining right now Like everything, technology has diminishing returns. There will reach a point people won't bother with research and innovation because it won't be worth it economically

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49984679]I don't get what you mean by it being different considering that it's been a continuous process ongoing for over two centuries. Since when the hell are we in threat of automation getting rid of all the jobs when there are still millions of people who grow crops on farms today by hand and sell it to the market and actually make a bigger profit than wealthy western farms mired in debt? New jobs are being created as fast as old ones are made obsolete, this is a basic fact of economics. It's not really possible for robots to replace everything because there are a lot of jobs where humans have a advantage and to outdo them requires the kind of research expenditure that civilization is incapable of sustaining right now[/QUOTE] Buddy, you might wanna rethink that because there are [B]billions[/B] of people being fed by millions. In past ages almost everyone had to grow crops if not to sell, for themselves because everyone had to pitch in. That's literally one of the things serfs had to do.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49984679]I don't get what you mean by it being different considering that it's been a continuous process ongoing for over two centuries. Since when the hell are we in threat of automation getting rid of all the jobs when there are still millions of people who grow crops on farms today by hand and sell it to the market and actually make a bigger profit than wealthy western farms mired in debt? New jobs are being created as fast as old ones are made obsolete, this is a basic fact of economics. It's not really possible for robots to replace everything because there are a lot of jobs where humans have a advantage and to outdo them requires the kind of research expenditure that civilization is incapable of sustaining right now Like everything, technology has diminishing returns. There will reach a point people won't bother with research and innovation because it won't be worth it economically[/QUOTE] I really don't get why you think job replacement will be 1-1 Nothing supports that.

The self-driving truck will put truck drivers out of business, just like factory robots removed 99% of factory jobs. This will result in increased profits by the businesses, which will allow for lower prices for consumers, which will result in more consumption, more production, and economic growth which in turn will create even more jobs. Jobs becoming outdated for cheaper in-country resources is a good thing. It's not like outsourcing where the money leaves the country. [editline]22nd March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;49983788]That 1:1 ratio is absolutely not going to hold up once automation adoption goes into full swing, we're not talking about a million jobs lost, we're talking about tens of millions, and that's just in the US alone, we've never seen anything like this before. The only new jobs we'll see created will be few in number and in areas like automation maintenance which will certainly require a degree, something that'll be far out of reach of the overwhelming majority of people being replaced. And before you say something like "but look at the industrial revolution" that is not comparable at all, it was totally different situation, the unskilled masses were able to transfer relatively smoothly from agriculture to the industry and service sectors, but with automation there will be nowhere to go for the vast majority of unskilled & low skilled workers.[/QUOTE] This. Full automation = post-scarcity and institution of a base income because operation costs will be so incredibly low. It'll be a new economic revolution

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49984706]I really don't get why you think job replacement will be 1-1 Nothing supports that.[/QUOTE] Its because it's a basic observable fact of economics? Unemployment isn't something that constantly goes up as a result of automation (or rather, improved productivity), but it's in a equilibrium. Short term changes in demographics or policy or innovation can impact it significantly, but the point is that the economy eventually returns to this equilibrium after time as the economy adjusts.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49984766]Its because it's a basic observable fact of economics? Unemployment isn't something that constantly goes up as a result of automation (or rather, improved productivity), but it's in a equilibrium. Short term changes in demographics or policy or innovation can impact it significantly, but the point is that the economy eventually returns to this equilibrium after time as the economy adjusts.[/QUOTE] He's right, as automation gets larger and larger unless we suddenly discover new fields jobs will certainly disappear. Once we live in a world that all shops are essentially vending machines and all factors of production are handled by robots, all we'll have are technicians and then software/hardware developers, who in turn will eventually be replaced. The 1:1 ratio would only be held up if we continued to develop new positions and new fields, which after a certain point we really won't unless we start having Philosophy be a high-paid profession (who knows, it very well might be, and the whole world might turn to intellectualism- but they aren't going to be working labor jobs anymore. They just aren't, there will be no space for them)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49984766]Its because it's a basic observable fact of economics? Unemployment isn't something that constantly goes up as a result of automation (or rather, improved productivity), but it's in a equilibrium. Short term changes in demographics or policy or innovation can impact it significantly, but the point is that the economy eventually returns to this equilibrium after time as the economy adjusts.[/QUOTE] Rules change. Contexts change. [url]http://www.supplychain247.com/article/top_20_jobs_in_the_us_transportation_industry[/url] I do not see how you're going to 1:1 replace and employ everyone I do not see how you're able to do that with an aging population that doesn't have the skills required to jump into a maintenance or otherwise type job role, not that there will even be that many.

[QUOTE=Sableye;49983901]Trucks have had GPS tracking, tamper seals, lojacks, and even satellite connected alarms for over a decade, semi theft is still a huge problem, the single biggest deterant is a trustworthy driver guarding his rig[/QUOTE] What if the trucks had no cabin and no way to detach the box from the truck itself without an advanced hardware lock

[QUOTE=phygon;49984782]He's right, as automation gets larger and larger unless we suddenly discover new fields jobs will certainly disappear. Once we live in a world that all shops are essentially vending machines and all factors of production are handled by robots, all we'll have are technicians and then software/hardware developers, who in turn will eventually be replaced. The 1:1 ratio would only be held up if we continued to develop new positions and new fields, which after a certain point we really won't unless we start having Philosophy be a high-paid profession (who knows, it very well might be, and the whole world might turn to intellectualism- but they aren't going to be working labor jobs anymore. They just aren't, there will be no space for them)[/QUOTE] Your theory rests on the flawed assumption that science and technology are an infinite source of growth. They aren't, and one day the economy will stop growing once the diminishing returns kick in. It's already the case that we are starting to see these diminishing returns in many areas, such as healthcare or education

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49984766]Its because it's a basic observable fact of economics? Unemployment isn't something that constantly goes up as a result of automation (or rather, improved productivity), but it's in a equilibrium. Short term changes in demographics or policy or innovation can impact it significantly, but the point is that the economy eventually returns to this equilibrium after time as the economy adjusts.[/QUOTE] the capability for an entire workforce to be replaced by automation upsets everything all current economic teachings know. we're diving into unknown territory. the number of people it takes to maintain the automation is a fraction of the number of people it would have taken to do that job. if the automation can self-diagnose and repair issues, which we are rapidly getting to, those jobs will go by the wayside as well.

[QUOTE=dai;49981895]unmanning on-site mining tech is awesome, it may put existing giant mining truck drivers into a pinch but it's opening tech jobs to operate and maintain the equipment in a different manor[/QUOTE] I know contractors rip you off but having 2 castles as an office? This is getting ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49984798]Your theory rests on the flawed assumption that science and technology are an infinite source of growth. They aren't, and one day the economy will stop growing once the diminishing returns kick in. It's already the case that we are starting to see these diminishing returns in many areas, such as healthcare or education[/QUOTE] So for the medical profession, it just won't happen? Ever? The diminishing returns are already reached and this is something you know for sure? Because computer engineers who are currently working to create automated healthcare, and automated AI doctors who vastly out perform human doctors should listen to you specifically on the subject and drop their research. All fields, every job, is available to be made automated. The cost benefit analysis will show what companies should do. And I think most of them see it as a valuable way to save money.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49984798]Your theory rests on the flawed assumption that science and technology are an infinite source of growth. They aren't, and one day the economy will stop growing once the diminishing returns kick in. It's already the case that we are starting to see these diminishing returns in many areas, such as healthcare or education[/QUOTE] where did you get the idea that healthcare research is slowing down? if anything it is speeding back up again.