I Make a New One

I’ve told you people a million times that I’m prone to hyperbole. So you’re sort of forewarned. Here goes: This Swiss dude is The King of all the anal-retentive restoration project YouTube video generators, and there are legions of them. There can be only one, and he’s it.

I started you out with the book press, a small dose of My Mechanics. It’s just 25 minutes long, because I’m not sure you’re ready for this guy’s whole thang in one eyeball injection. A little later on, I’ll post his three-hour saga of restoring a Datsun 240z with the same level of care he brought to the book press. This is like homeopathy, you can’t tolerate a full dose right away, you have to build up to it.

I could have posted any one of his other videos instead of the book press. An old table lamp. A battered, venerable kitchen scale. A set of headphones it looks like Edith Piaf used. Each, in their own way, is the work of a lunatic. I mean that in the most complimentary way. I love lunacy like that.

There is no rational explanation for the amount of effort and care he puts into every project. There’s no way to torture a spreadsheet to make it profitable on its own merits. Stuff taken off the walls in a defunct Swiss TGI Friday’s and restored to perfection is not a business plan. There’s no way for someone with that particular set of skills to make it pay off by fixing flea market finds.

A highly skilled machinist like him makes bank. He’s the only one who could possibly afford to hire him, because he’s not paying himself. No one is going to give him twenty grand for a restored bookbinding vise, no matter how nice it looks. After watching his 240Z restoration, I wracked my brain thinking of someone who could afford to buy it when he’s done, if you factored in all the highly-skilled effort that went into it. Maybe Toyota? I doubt even they have enough money in their couch cushions. Museums? They don’t have that kind of money in their budgets. And what would they want with these mundane things, just because he made them perfect?

So I settled on the idea that that he does it for one of two other reasons. Either he does it for the love of it, or he does it as performance art. Upon further reflection, neither one of those explanations seems like a viable answer, either.

For love? This guy doesn’t love doing what he’s doing. He’s obsessed. Any girl with a stalker will explain the difference between love and obsession. He is demanding that the world conform to his standard of workmanship. He is a Bridgeport Canute ordering the rusty tide not to rise. Hell, he’s telling it to recede, and he’s getting it to go back out to sea.

He doesn’t just restore things to their original luster. He plows past restoration and fixes any original sins he finds. He grinds off extraneous hidden casting marks that came straight from the factory, and chamfers every single edge. He’s not a fairy godmother. He’s an avenging angel.

As performance art? We’re getting closer here, maybe. He has a prodigious list of Patreons. YouTube videos with the counter in the millions pay fairly well. Selling the objects could never make it pay, but letting people watch you fix them seems like a going concern in the rarified air of millions of YouTube subscribers.

But it’s a very unusual form of performance art, if that’s what it is. He never shows his face, never utters a word, never even grunts when a particularly tough nut won’t turn. Performance art is the land of “look at me.” He doesn’t seem to want to live there. Personality cults require more personality than he feels like delivering.

I wanted very much to put this guy in context, compare him to things that came before him. Shadetree mechanics? Model railroaders? Reproduction woodworkers like Wallace Nutting? Basement boatbuilders? Hell, ship in a bottle makers?

I began to fear that the guy doesn’t even care as much about the objects he works on as much as making a video of what he’s doing. It’s easy to overlook that his videography is better than all the other restoration channels, too. Unlike his competitors, you never fast forward through his vids. He never skips anything he needs to show you, and never lingers on any operation long enough to be boring. And you’ll eventually sit on the edge of your chair, waiting for him to find something that’s not up to (his) snuff, and the chyron to read, “I make a new one,” and watch him do it.

So I don’t know who or what this guy is, or what he represents. But he sure is something, ain’t he?

And if he can bang on this thing for 2.5 years, without even getting to the engine or interior yet, you can spare three hours, can’t you?

 

A Happy Father’s Day

This video requires a commitment from you. It’s pushing three hours long. In TikTok world, it’s the equivalent of a trip to the moon. But it’s worth it, for various reasons.

The Tube is awash with people bringing a trailer and rescuing cars from barns, and from other guys with trailers. I’ve watched a lot of them. I especially enjoy the fellows that put the cars back the way they were when they were new. The fellows that paint 1970s Toyotas the color of a stripper’s toenails after adding a supercharged 428, not so much.

I think these fellers at Turnin’ Rust are a little different, and more commendable. Like many who stumble on internet notoriety, they’ve cycled through a handful of names while deciding which side of the bread the butter is on. They’ve been at it much longer, and without a camera pointed at them for most of it. They’re a father/son team (with little sister recording), laboring in obscurity in a very obscure place, Bogata Texas. It’s pronounced “buh GAY tah,” I think. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I used to live in Maine, and we pronounce Calais “callous,” so I never cast any pronunciation aspersions.

Well, however you say it, Bogata Texas is The Last Picture Show in the flesh. It’s been shedding population for forty or fifty years, and has been whittled down from 1,500 people to about 1,000. The Bushes, Wyatt and Lance, have been fixing cars in Bogata for whoever’s left. Their skill set is an interesting one. They’re completely accustomed to resurrecting autos too far gone for anyone else to even attempt them, simply to get them back to running, and being useful again.

This isn’t Jay Leno’s operating room for Maseratis. While it’s interesting to see old supercars getting their very molecules polished enough to become museum pieces, I can’t count it as useful behavior. Making something work again, restoring its usefulness for regular people, is something else again. And just how many guys who’ve had a taste of TV notoriety have a zillion-dollar personal car collection? I’ve lost track. It can be a little off-putting. A museum for one person sounds like something Saddam Hussein would enjoy. Or maybe Tutankhamen.

The Turnin’ Rust folk’s specialty appears to be old Volkswagens. That’s not what I’d expect from someone fixing cars in the flatlands between Dallas and Oklahoma, but what do I know? Beetles were cheap and easy to fix back in the day. My brother had a VW, and it was a blessing that it was easy to fix, because it needed fixing all the damn time. But that was just a testament to its value to the impoverished. Cheap enough to buy, easy enough to fix is a mostly forgotten set of requirements for a daily driver. Cars today are mostly interchangeable, and ultimately disposable when they need substantial repairs.

The father/son team features a series of videos with no speaking, and no music. Those are a tonic for a weary internaut. They work together wordlessly, each knowing the other’s minds, and accomplish all sorts of difficult things without any chafing between them. The stuck bolts provide the only friction.

This video has plenty of discussion in it. It’s not surprising. Getting a 1947 International truck running after being left to rust in a field for decades is hard. I’ve picked this video out of their catalog of similar projects because it featured the longest list of seemingly insuperable impediments to their mission: to simply get the thing to run.

The opportunities to give up for good reason that they squandered along the way boggled my mind. They never complained, never flagged. No matter how hard it was, they kept going. And like all of their videos, there’s no cursing, and no high-fives. When things go badly, they regroup and continue. When things go right, they thank the lord instead of strutting and preening. And they do it all, literally, as shade tree mechanics. Their truck tire engine stand is marvelous.

And the grin on the phlegmatic, avuncular dad’s face at around 2:48:00 alone is worth the price of admission. The son is grinning, too, but it’s different. I know dad’s grin. I’ve experienced it once or twice with my own sons. If you could bottle it, you’d sell more of it than Jack Daniel’s ever could.

Nowak! Szybciej!

Moonlighting (1982) is a small movie. In fact, it’s so small, it’s practically claustrophobic. It’s the story of four men sent from Poland to England to renovate their boss’s rundown pied-a-terre, even though it’s not legal to do it. The film is set contemporaneously in the early 80s, an interesting time period in both countries. Poland was still under the communist thumb, and England was still trying to shed its post-war torpor.

Small movies are hard to find these days. The American studios are only interested in financing Spiderbatwars movies that can gross over a billion. Occasionally someone makes a minor hit on a relative shoestring, like Jon Favreau did with Swingers. Then Hollywood hires them to make Spiderbatwars movies along with the rest of the mafia they’re running out there.

Then again, Hollywood didn’t have anything to do with Moonlighting. It’s a British/Polish production. They still know how to do small. The UK has a long tradition of so-called kitchen sink dramas, going back to things like Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, or Look Back in Anger. They honed their inquisition into social class, everyday life, and regional differences to a knife edge, and portrayed it with modest, naturalistic, almost documentary style. In Hollywood parlance, those things add up to: cheap, and hard to monetize, so they’re not interested. The way productions are paid for in the UK make small movies possible. They’re subsidized by various governments, the TV networks themselves, and any number of other not-quite-government entities. The actors don’t get Brad Pitt money, and the stuff gets made.

Jeremy Irons plays Nowak, the foreman of the other three Poles sent to camp out in a London flat while renovating it on the sly. He’s fantastic, like he always is. Irons affects a believable foreign tang in his voice that makes his halting English more believable. In the story, he’s the only Pole who can speak English, so he’s in charge. He’s also the only who can read the newspaper. He discovers that while they were away, martial law was declared in Poland, and tanks are rolling in the streets. The conundrum he faces on whether to tell his mates the truth is the central hinge of the movie.

Unless it’s not. The movie is also a fascinating look at British life at the time, and how foreigners might see it. Fish don’t know about the water they swim in, so a pack of Poles is a great way to get some perspective on Lunnon life.

The Poles are all painfully honest — for a while. They’ve been introduced into a byzantine quest to renovate a flat, and are forced to adapt to the way people behave all around them. After they’re robbed and taken advantage of in various ways, they start doing as the Romans do. Nowak starts by cutting corners, followed by outright stealing when he gets desperate. He learns how to steal by watching how the locals, who have no reason to be desperate, steal and chisel each other.

The movie has enormous appeal as a character study, but it delivers much more if you get interested in it. It is the most realistic portrayal I’ve ever seen of what it’s like to be a workman, banging away on some far flung project to make a couple bucks. You’re not in charge, even of your own affairs, far from home, sleeping on the floor in the rubble every night. You can’t stop or even quit until you finish. It’s a fantastic depiction of, “No matter what happens, keep going.”

Socialist paradises tend to produce a keep going ethic in their populations, frequently at bayonet point. It’s not the desirable version of toughing it out. You plod along, going through the motions, get your ration of gruel, and become ambivalent. It’s hard to tell if everything is illegal, or nothing is, depending on the number on your party card. The Poles work hard, crazy hard, without anything but the tools they can carry and sneak through customs, because they’ve been promised a better deal than they’re getting at home. Maybe.

That’s where Moonlighting delivers another incredibly accurate aspect of the life of a worker at the bottom of the employment totem pole. You’re often working merely on the promise of money, or a promotion, or some other intangible leg up in this world. The work is always worse than described, and the promised emoluments play hide-and-go-seek as often as not.

Irons provides a voiceover throughout the movie. I can count on one hand movies with a continuous voiceover where it improves the movie. This is one of those rare exceptions. Nowak and his minions have jumped from the Kafkaesque frying pan into the Gogolish fire, and the voice in his head makes it plainer for the audience to understand. It’s not exposition, a cheap short cut to depicting their world. It’s an explanation, written by a Pole, who can make Russian writers look cheerful by comparison.

Halfway through, Nowak thinks, “I can speak their language… but I don’t know what they really mean.” One wonders, Nowak, if they do either.

A Scandi Fred Flintstone

Hampus Granstrom is quite the shade tree mechanic. He’s apparently based in northern Sweden, so the shade trees are really tall, and throw as much snow as shade. Additional information about him is not easy to find, and what I could discover was in gorny gorny umlauty lingo, so I’ll give it a pass. Let’s just agree that the fellow is a wonder, and leave it at that. I especially liked the long-winded, extensive explanation of his background and worldview he offered on his YouTube page:

Description: I like cars.

I guess so. Me, I liked watching a video of him restoring a ’66 Volvo, start to finish, and found it to be some brand of awesome. I’m fairly familiar with ’66 cars, having owned a couple of them back in the day. Unlike Hampus, mine were at least running when I got a hold of them. I had to make all sorts of repairs to them to keep them running, but nothing major like his videos. I was an auto dermatologist, maybe a bit of a chiropractor. Hampus is both a thoracic and a plastic surgeon. I dunno, maybe a psychiatrist, too. Here’s that video:

Having fixed the same vintage car helped me to understand what a fantastic worker Hampus is. I’ve done the bondo repairs and paint and drum brakes and seat covers and suspension and I don’t know what-all besides. Watching him do it, I felt like a guy who painted the walls in a room while Valasquez worked on a canvas in the middle of it. We both owned brushes. That’s about where the similarity ends.

The first video, the one with the abandoned Saab, really killed me though. Whenever the first tool you select to start an automotive restoration is a chainsaw, you’ve entered another dimension. The molecules of that Saab were barely holding each other’s hands, and he ended up driving it through the primeval forest with the unpaved road scrolling past under his clutch foot like some Scandi Fred Flintstone.

On top of everything else, Hampus simply points the camera at the thing that is happening, says nothing, and doesn’t seem to own a radio. If you notice anything wrong with his videos, his general approach, or his particular skills, feel free to point it out. Forgive me if I won’t stand on one leg and hold my breath while waiting for you to do it, however.

AI: The World Will End Yesterday. Plan Accordingly.

Well, if you watch the artificial news, Artificial Intelligence is going to take your job and your girlfriend, at least when it’s not too busy taking over some bunker in North Dakota and launching nukes willy nilly. You could form the opinion that AI already has taken over the world. You can’t turn on anything on these here intertunnels without some demented form of Clippy the AI assistant offering to correct your grammer, and maybe write that email for you that you’ve been meaning to send, but you can’t for the life of you remember how to spell Deer Sur.

There have been many, many laundry lists published of all the jobs that are going to be wiped out by one chatbot or another. Most everyone outside of longshoremen and prostitutes are slated to be standing on streetcorners holding signs that read: Will photoshop the background out of pictures of female footwear for use on your Shopify store for food. The usual commentarazzi are furiously analyzing the inroads that Large Language Models (LLMs) are making into the economy, and publishing their search engine optimized articles, written by ChatGPT, natch, with headers like: AI: The World Will End Yesterday. Plan Accordingly.

What is missing is some form of sober analysis. Just adding a new definition of slop to the dictionary isn’t helpful, any more than adding a new definition of vaccine kept you from getting the flu. I’m interested in the topic, however, and I finally found one lonely source that at least attempted to answer the only cogent question:

HOW ADAPTABLE ARE AMERICAN WORKERS TO AI-INDUCED JOB DISPLACEMENT?

I remember the good old days on the intertunnel when I’d have to warn you that the link goes to a PDF. It’s 2026, I think. I’m never sure until about February. If it is indeed 2026, I think you should have gotten over your fear of Adobe Acrobat by now. I suppose I could skip the warning about the format of the document, and offer a more timely warning for today’s internauts: It’s not only a PDF, it’s a 54-page working paper from a think tank, and it’s got a lot of words, some of them polysyllabic. It’s likely your lips will get really tired while reading it. It’s got numbers in brackets all over it, too, which I think lead to footnotes at the end. I can’t be sure, I never get that far without my eyes glazing over.

The working paper is from NBER. That’s an acronym for the National Bureau of Economic Research. They’re a think tank in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The locale makes my spider sense tingle. That zip code is ground zero for educated lunatic worldviews. But NBER doesn’t appear to be a big building full of Sovereign Citizens or people eating avocado toast and plotting to dye their hair pink or anything. It’s a loose agglomeration of academics and public policy wonks that seems at least modestly open-minded. So I figured it might be worth the time it took to read the report. Honestly, the question itself, how adaptable are American workers to AI-induced job displacement, demonstrates some clear thinking from the get-go. It’s long past time to stop arguing whether LLMs are real, or here to stay, or bankrupting only themselves or the whole nation, or useless, or whatever. LLMs are real, and they’re spectacular, sorta. Let’s move on. Whose ox is gonna get gored?

The paper doesn’t have a monomania for simple exposure to AI, which is great, because AI is exposing itself in more places than Hunter Biden. That ship has sailed. They’ve come up with an Adaptive Capacity Index, to see how well many types of workers will be able to adapt themselves to the new workplace now that LLMs rule most every roost. The analysis is interesting.

First they predict (or observe, really, at this point) the potential for tasks in an occupation to be affected by AI. Then they measure the Adaptive Capacity of that guy that always takes the last donut in the break room, and everyone like him. Adaptive Capacity is an amalgam of workers’ ability to adjust after the modification of their jobs (or outright displacement) caused by AI. It includes factors like liquid financial resources, skill transferability, geographic labor market opportunities, and  age distribution within occupations. So far, so good. The index they came up with covers 356 occupations. They claim that’s about 96% of U.S. workforce. That’s a lot. I’ll admit I jumped to conclusions earlier, and I’m not really sure if longshoremen or prostitutes might be included after all.

If you’re of the USA Today generation, they’re looking out for you. First, a bubble chart:

AI exposure vs. Adaptive CapacityIf you’re of the Facebook generation, don’t worry. They’ve got a map showing the distribution of the population that isn’t expected to survive the chatbot apocalypse. It has colors and a thermometer, rendering it still more fascinating:

Got that? If you live where the buildings are tall enough to cast shadows, you’re in danger. If you live in New Mexico, you already knew you were in danger, just by looking out the window. A failed state, that.

They’ve got lists, if you’re from the Tumblr generation. Who’s got high exposure, but high adaptability to boot? Here goes:

So much for all the news blurbs about software developers and various other computer nerds being put out of a job by chatbots. They’ve got the highest exposure, and the highest ability to adapt to that exposure.

So who’s on the other end of the spectrum, and the dookie stick? Who’s getting Skynetted first? Here’s who really needs to adapt, but won’t be able to:

I suppose it would be impolitic of me to mention that there are several job descriptions on that last list that I’d like to sign up for manned missions to the surface of the sun.

Once the report has identified the problem, they go on to mention the only solutions anyone ever mentions. The government has to step in with retraining and handouts for these benighted souls flummoxed by ChatGPT. One can’t help but notice that a lot of those job descriptions are more or less either government jobs, or private sector jobs made necessary only by government regulation. Retraining? Handouts? It’s a maladaptive snake eating itself, and turtles all the way down. Maybe they can all open daycare centers in Minneapolis. It pays well, I hear.

One is also tempted to observe that the people on the first list are preponderantly male, and the second list is loaded with the distaff set, and in many cases, just plain loaded. I was tempted, but I got over it. So I won’t mention it, or parallel parking, or any other divisive topic.

See? I’ve adapted to the internet. It has girls on it now.

Tag: honest work

Find Stuff:

Archives