6 ms·

Coal mining and related production is a large employer. It's about propping up small coal-towns.

by pfraze 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Put out of work coal miners on social security early at their full benefit and fund it with a carbon tax. This doesn't even need to be a carbon tax; simply a transfer from the general fund. The average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year. 174,000 coal workers in the US @ $31,668k/year (the max SS benefit permitted) = $5.5 billion/year. This is not expensive, nor in perpetuity, only the years from now until they would've hit their full retirement age regardless, not to mention the cost savings from drug addiction and other social negatives currently occurring from the industry collapsing (please, please, please take the 2 minutes to read this footnote) [1]. People should not be harmed by our transition to renewables, and it is laughable that we can't afford to take care of those no longer employed within the economy. This is not unprecedented. The shipping industry used redundancy payments to transition longshoremen out of the workforce when containerization exploded, funded by profits from the efficiency gains of containerization. I'm simply arguing for the formalization of the process, and administration through the Social Security Administration (one of the most efficient orgs in the US government). To be clear: I am essentially advocating a bridge basic income for these workers. Not subsidies, not incentives. You quit your job at the coal mine or coal generator today, and you're retired from the coal industry. EDIT: @derekdahmer & @ArkyBeagle: I'm not requiring someone to retire if they don't want to. I'm simply ensuring they don't fall into poverty. What more can be done when your job is destroying the environment? Allow it to continue? That is unacceptable. I'm not proposing welfare, I'm proposing financial freedom to explore other options to find purpose and self actualize. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/07/us/drug-overdose-deaths-in-the-us.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/07/us/drug-overdo...
- myowncrapulence 10y ago
  and it is laughable that we can't afford to take care of those no longer employed within the economy But that would shift power away from entrenched industries. Big money is lazy.
- ceterum_censeo 10y ago
  Average coal miner's salary is a lot more than $32k/year. e: the salary info wasn't in the comment when I replied.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year. Social security safety net is better than 0, which is where coal is going to regardless, no matter how much we attempt to prop it up. Can't compete against fuels with zero marginal cost. Every coal company in the US is currently bankrupt. I am open to better ideas if you have them. My proposal removes coal-fired generation and provides for workers at the same time, affordably.
    - ethbro 10y ago
      Next up: truck drivers.
    - ceterum_censeo 10y ago
      We're talking a difference of $10k/year, that's a lot of money. And you're speaking of miners at the lowest rungs of the ladder: what of those more experienced, or the geologists and mining engineers who are paid 2--3 times more? Your solution doesn't provide for the workers. I'm sure you're sincere, but a handout from the government is not perceived as a substitute for challenging, meaningful, and respectable work. Basic income proposals don't generally seem to consider pride, other than what I see as nebulous handwaving about how one would be free to pursue their dreams. What dreams are there in coal country when there is no coal? I don't see BI alone as helping to sustain or resurrect a community and associated way of life whose primary industry is one you've eliminated.
      - grzm 10y ago
        You make good points. We do have to figure out ways to transition out of a particular industry. Open questions (not aimed at parent): Have transitions like these been made successfully in the past? Are there particularly bad examples of what we should make sure we avoid (Detroit)? We can't be the first to have thought about this. Anyone know of studies/histories we can refer to?
- derekdahmer 10y ago
  This attitude is why democrats have so much trouble understanding why republicans have so much support from working class voters. People don't want to go on welfare, they want a job. It's about identity. Free money can keep you fed but it can't give you a sense of pride and self worth.
  - asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
    This creates an intractable problem when their job is deemed too dangerous for a civilization to allow to continue. If someone's job is their identity, and their job harms others, what are some other possible solutions? (Retraining runs into similar issues as you mentioned -- coal miners don't want to become keyboard jockeys, they want their sense of pride and self worth for doing the profession they trained for.)
    - adamiscool8 10y ago
      Actually, it seems like a lot of them aren't opposed to keyboard jockeying. [1] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/from-coal-to-coding-appalachian-miners-getting-a-fresh-start https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/from-coal...
  - foxylad 10y ago
    Not sure about the politics, but yes. And as someone commented below, we're going to have to find socially useful jobs for another swath of blue-collar men soon, when all the trucks go automonomous. This is a BIG problem - any ideas?
  - ch4s3 10y ago
    Then give them jobs in the parks service, pay them to clean up old mine sites, pay them to plant trees, pay them to install fiber optics lines, or anything.
    - intended 10y ago
      But people want to cut funds to those departments in America right ?
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  But in a society where personal identity is increasingly at risk, you can't pay for that. It's fiction, but you end up with at least a few Boyd Crowder characters from "Justified." FWIW, this is how Trump voters are made. And at least in the U.S., the coal industry looks done.
- ascagnel_ 10y ago
  Why not, instead of putting them on Social Security, subsidize the installation of solar and wind generation facilities in areas that previously were economically driven by coal mining, and then provide training programs so those displaced miners instead are attractive to employers as workers that can manage and maintain the new electricity generation networks? A single coal-fired power plant can generate far more electricity than a single solar panel or wind turbine, and keeping those up and running will need a lot more hands.
jacobolus 10y ago
Except it’s not nearly a large enough employer to single-handedly prop up the places where it dominates. Coal mining has been substantially automated compared to a few decades ago, and the total number of coal jobs is down to a small fraction of its peak. Even if we doubled or tripled coal production, local economies in coal country would still be limping. It’s not like executives/stockholders of coal companies are dumping all their profits back into the local economy. As a country/world we’d be better off paying former coal workers a living wage indefinitely, no strings attached, for nothing in return but keeping the coal in the ground. The US already employs more people in the solar industry than the coal industry. We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever.
- pfraze 10y ago
  Do you think there isn't any remaining connection between labor and coal's political resilience? Coal-politics could be explained as a lobbied interest, but that doesn't feel like a complete enough picture to me.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    Sure, there is some connection. But a big part of it is a mix of desperation and wishful thinking. Same story with the steel industry, auto industry, textile industry, etc., in other parts of the country. And of course the coal companies are still willing to throw lots of money at lobbying, which buys a lot of influence among local politicians.
    - pfraze 10y ago
      Yeah. About your previous comment, > We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever I wonder if the renewables need the labor? If so, I can see that working. If not, then really the only problem is how to handle political dissatisfaction in the short term, and (perhaps) thus our election today.
    - 10y ago
maxerickson 10y ago
Brief research suggests there might be a few tens of thousands of new jobs if the industry massively expands using the average level of automation of existing plant (of course the expansion will use higher levels of automation). I guess from many perspectives that is a lot of jobs, but it isn't that many jobs.
- pfraze 10y ago
  I have the same question for you as I have for jacobolus; even if that's the reality, I can still see a political angle to pushing a coal investment, since it was historically a large employer.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Wasn't the whole point of kicking the old group out that they were pushing political angles rather than working for the American people?
    - pfraze 10y ago
      Depends on your perspective, I suppose. We speak ideals, we vote interests.
- leurfete 10y ago
  It's enough to help tens of thousands of families and revitalize their communities (they'll be spending most of their earnings somewhere). In Appalachia that could make a huge impact on quality of life.
  - thatcat 10y ago
    For how long can coal be the future and at what cost? The price drop of coal may result in other job losses as investment in sustainable systems drops. Additionally, the waste generated in the form of fly ash contains radioactive and carcinogenic materials. Disposal is worse than for nuclear system due to the large volume of material generated and inadequate regulations.
ocschwar 10y ago
Actually, even that's not true. Mountaintop removal mining is mechanized and automated.

Coal mining and related production is a large employer. It's about propping up small coal-towns.

by pfraze 10y ago

Coal mining and related production is a large employer. It's about propping up small coal-towns.

Put out of work coal miners on social security early at their full benefit and fund it with a carbon tax. This doesn't even need to be a carbon tax; simply a transfer from the general fund. The average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year. 174,000 coal workers in the US @ $31,668k/year (the max SS benefit permitted) = $5.5 billion/year. This is not expensive, nor in perpetuity, only the years from now until they would've hit their full retirement age regardless, not to mention the cost savings from drug addiction and other social negatives currently occurring from the industry collapsing (please, please, please take the 2 minutes to read this footnote) [1]. People should not be harmed by our transition to renewables, and it is laughable that we can't afford to take care of those no longer employed within the economy. This is not unprecedented. The shipping industry used redundancy payments to transition longshoremen out of the workforce when containerization exploded, funded by profits from the efficiency gains of containerization. I'm simply arguing for the formalization of the process, and administration through the Social Security Administration (one of the most efficient orgs in the US government). To be clear: I am essentially advocating a bridge basic income for these workers. Not subsidies, not incentives. You quit your job at the coal mine or coal generator today, and you're retired from the coal industry. EDIT: @derekdahmer & @ArkyBeagle: I'm not requiring someone to retire if they don't want to. I'm simply ensuring they don't fall into poverty. What more can be done when your job is destroying the environment? Allow it to continue? That is unacceptable. I'm not proposing welfare, I'm proposing financial freedom to explore other options to find purpose and self actualize. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/07/us/drug-overdose-deaths-in-the-us.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/07/us/drug-overdo...

myowncrapulence 10y ago
and it is laughable that we can't afford to take care of those no longer employed within the economy But that would shift power away from entrenched industries. Big money is lazy.
ceterum_censeo 10y ago
Average coal miner's salary is a lot more than $32k/year. e: the salary info wasn't in the comment when I replied.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year. Social security safety net is better than 0, which is where coal is going to regardless, no matter how much we attempt to prop it up. Can't compete against fuels with zero marginal cost. Every coal company in the US is currently bankrupt. I am open to better ideas if you have them. My proposal removes coal-fired generation and provides for workers at the same time, affordably.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    Next up: truck drivers.
  - ceterum_censeo 10y ago
    We're talking a difference of $10k/year, that's a lot of money. And you're speaking of miners at the lowest rungs of the ladder: what of those more experienced, or the geologists and mining engineers who are paid 2--3 times more? Your solution doesn't provide for the workers. I'm sure you're sincere, but a handout from the government is not perceived as a substitute for challenging, meaningful, and respectable work. Basic income proposals don't generally seem to consider pride, other than what I see as nebulous handwaving about how one would be free to pursue their dreams. What dreams are there in coal country when there is no coal? I don't see BI alone as helping to sustain or resurrect a community and associated way of life whose primary industry is one you've eliminated.
    - grzm 10y ago
      You make good points. We do have to figure out ways to transition out of a particular industry. Open questions (not aimed at parent): Have transitions like these been made successfully in the past? Are there particularly bad examples of what we should make sure we avoid (Detroit)? We can't be the first to have thought about this. Anyone know of studies/histories we can refer to?
derekdahmer 10y ago
This attitude is why democrats have so much trouble understanding why republicans have so much support from working class voters. People don't want to go on welfare, they want a job. It's about identity. Free money can keep you fed but it can't give you a sense of pride and self worth.
- asdfasdfa11112 10y ago
  This creates an intractable problem when their job is deemed too dangerous for a civilization to allow to continue. If someone's job is their identity, and their job harms others, what are some other possible solutions? (Retraining runs into similar issues as you mentioned -- coal miners don't want to become keyboard jockeys, they want their sense of pride and self worth for doing the profession they trained for.)
  - adamiscool8 10y ago
    Actually, it seems like a lot of them aren't opposed to keyboard jockeying. [1] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/from-coal-to-coding-appalachian-miners-getting-a-fresh-start https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-03/from-coal...
- foxylad 10y ago
  Not sure about the politics, but yes. And as someone commented below, we're going to have to find socially useful jobs for another swath of blue-collar men soon, when all the trucks go automonomous. This is a BIG problem - any ideas?
- ch4s3 10y ago
  Then give them jobs in the parks service, pay them to clean up old mine sites, pay them to plant trees, pay them to install fiber optics lines, or anything.
  - intended 10y ago
    But people want to cut funds to those departments in America right ?
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
But in a society where personal identity is increasingly at risk, you can't pay for that. It's fiction, but you end up with at least a few Boyd Crowder characters from "Justified." FWIW, this is how Trump voters are made. And at least in the U.S., the coal industry looks done.
ascagnel_ 10y ago
Why not, instead of putting them on Social Security, subsidize the installation of solar and wind generation facilities in areas that previously were economically driven by coal mining, and then provide training programs so those displaced miners instead are attractive to employers as workers that can manage and maintain the new electricity generation networks? A single coal-fired power plant can generate far more electricity than a single solar panel or wind turbine, and keeping those up and running will need a lot more hands.

jacobolus 10y ago

Except it’s not nearly a large enough employer to single-handedly prop up the places where it dominates. Coal mining has been substantially automated compared to a few decades ago, and the total number of coal jobs is down to a small fraction of its peak. Even if we doubled or tripled coal production, local economies in coal country would still be limping. It’s not like executives/stockholders of coal companies are dumping all their profits back into the local economy. As a country/world we’d be better off paying former coal workers a living wage indefinitely, no strings attached, for nothing in return but keeping the coal in the ground. The US already employs more people in the solar industry than the coal industry. We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever.

pfraze 10y ago
Do you think there isn't any remaining connection between labor and coal's political resilience? Coal-politics could be explained as a lobbied interest, but that doesn't feel like a complete enough picture to me.
- jacobolus 10y ago
  Sure, there is some connection. But a big part of it is a mix of desperation and wishful thinking. Same story with the steel industry, auto industry, textile industry, etc., in other parts of the country. And of course the coal companies are still willing to throw lots of money at lobbying, which buys a lot of influence among local politicians.
  - pfraze 10y ago
    Yeah. About your previous comment, > We could conceivably make a policy like big federal wage subsidies to renewable companies willing to relocate to West Virginia or wherever I wonder if the renewables need the labor? If so, I can see that working. If not, then really the only problem is how to handle political dissatisfaction in the short term, and (perhaps) thus our election today.
  - 10y ago

maxerickson 10y ago

Brief research suggests there might be a few tens of thousands of new jobs if the industry massively expands using the average level of automation of existing plant (of course the expansion will use higher levels of automation). I guess from many perspectives that is a lot of jobs, but it isn't that many jobs.

pfraze 10y ago
I have the same question for you as I have for jacobolus; even if that's the reality, I can still see a political angle to pushing a coal investment, since it was historically a large employer.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Wasn't the whole point of kicking the old group out that they were pushing political angles rather than working for the American people?
  - pfraze 10y ago
    Depends on your perspective, I suppose. We speak ideals, we vote interests.
leurfete 10y ago
It's enough to help tens of thousands of families and revitalize their communities (they'll be spending most of their earnings somewhere). In Appalachia that could make a huge impact on quality of life.
- thatcat 10y ago
  For how long can coal be the future and at what cost? The price drop of coal may result in other job losses as investment in sustainable systems drops. Additionally, the waste generated in the form of fly ash contains radioactive and carcinogenic materials. Disposal is worse than for nuclear system due to the large volume of material generated and inadequate regulations.

ocschwar 10y ago

Actually, even that's not true. Mountaintop removal mining is mechanized and automated.