The supply chain crisis intensifies as ships containing much-wanted cargo continue clogging up the California ports. There are several reasons given for this. Lack of drivers, ports that operate sixteen as opposed to twenty-four hours a day, labor laws, and lack of automation. The inefficiency of our ports is being compared to those run in Asia, where, incidentally, little care is given to workers’ rights. According to The National Review, the biggest cause of the crisis is the International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which they claim, resists automation while negotiating “extraordinary pay for its workers and strict work rules.” While it is arguably true that labor unions can be a drain on resources, the bigger question is whether we want to replace port workers with automation in the interest of saving money.
Klaus Schwab discusses supply chains in Covid-19: The Great Reset. He cites labor and environmental laws as being key ingredients in disrupting efficiency in global shipping operations. According to an article by The Cato Institute, the proposed infrastructure bill, which allocates twelve billion dollars to seaport infrastructure, has a list of demands which would increase the cost of goods coming into the U.S. Among these is the requirement that most products used in transportation projects are produced in the United States. Another is that workers on federally funded projects be paid the union wage, and yet another, is the fact that in all port expansion projects, required dredging is done with U.S.-made ships and equipment. These all fit within the scope of labor and environmental laws by the way. Cato suggests that the elimination of these inefficient mandates would speed up port expansion projects. It could, but at what price?
Is the government packing the infrastructure bill with these demands knowing it will lead to increased costs? On the surface, demanding products are made in the U.S. should be a good thing. Looking out for our workers, in a reasonable way, should be a good thing too. Is it possible they are deliberately exacerbating the crisis to get the people to accept the inevitable arrival of automation? Is the supply chain crisis a deliberately orchestrated problem with a pre-determined solution? Looking at how our inefficient ports are compared to others around the world, which are automated, you must wonder.
Technology exists to replace most of us with robots. By the year 2035, according to Schwab, more than half the workers in the restaurant, entertainment, and retail industries will be replaced by automation of some kind. Schwab also states automation will affect global supply chains. Artificial intelligence will allow for more local production which will keep costs down for companies looking to shorten their supply chain routes because of what Schwab refers to as “economic distancing.”
“There is an additional phenomenon set to support the expansion of automation: when economic distancing might follow social distancing. As countries turn inward and global companies shorten their super-efficient but highly fragile supply chains, automation, and robots that enable more local production, while keeping costs down, will be in great demand.” (Covid-19: The Great Reset)
Covid-19, according to Schwab has presented the opportunity to push many stalled agenda items forward. One of these stalled agendas is the acceleration of automation. While we are all being affected by the crisis at the ports, we must ask ourselves if we want to accept the idea of allowing automated artificial intelligence to take over. Technology exists to replace most of us now. If we accept this as a solution because we want to go Christmas shopping, how much easier will it be for the global elite pushing The Great Reset to go ahead and replace us too? Is the automation agenda the real reason for vaccine mandates? Look at how many people are quitting their jobs, and employers don’t even care.
Schwab claimed that the pandemic provided the opportunity to create a people-first economy where human needs will come before corporate profits. When he discusses the idea of replacing people with robots, however, in the name of keeping labor costs down and saving money, this is a little hard to believe. Putting people first means providing jobs that enable men to build lives for themselves. What we have learned so far about The Great Reset, is that they intend to push a de-growth agenda, and put the interests of the environment above the needs of men.
Article posted with permission from David Risselada
