7 ms·

>“If you can get rid of the drivers, those people are out of jobs, but the cost of moving all those goods goes down significantly,” Kaplan said. This is a majo

>“If you can get rid of the drivers, those people are out of jobs, but the cost of moving all those goods goes down significantly,” Kaplan said. This is a major point of automation. Yes, many jobs will be lost. But the prices of many goods will decrease. The problem is that the current transition threatens to be so rapid as to seriously disrupt society. Perhaps new jobs will eventually be created to make up for those lost to automation (or perhaps not), but they won't be created fast enough to avoid the pain of all the rapid job losses that are coming. Thankfully, society seems to be coming around to the idea that resistance is futile, and we need to address this problem before it becomes too overwhelming. Personally, I feel one of the most realistic options would be to reduce the standard work week to 4 days and/or 30 hours. People need to be kept busy, or society overall tends to start to crumble around the edges. This would mean people will need to shift their perspective on income, as it will likely be reduced. But this shouldn't be too bad, since all the automation will likely lead to reduced prices all around. Reducing your income by 25% may sound bad, but if practically everything becomes ~20-30% cheaper then you should have essentially the same standard of living, but with fewer working hours. Isn't that what we more or less would all like? No matter what we wind up doing however, chances are there will be some period of difficult transition. All we can hope to do is make it as short and relatively painless as possible.

FussyZeus 10y ago
I agree with most everything you've said, the one point that I would contest is: > Yes, many jobs will be lost. But the prices of many goods will decrease. If you're talking about what I first thought of, which is things like groceries, housewares, the "every day things" that we all buy and consume without really thinking, I'm not sure that A: The prices on these items could go much lower than they already are and remain profitable, or B: That the producers of said goods (majority MASSIVE corporations with impressive names and product rosters, and the most likely early adopters of this technology) would reduce the prices in accordance with the reduction in cost. The trend now among these companies seems to be to squeeze every last cent out of every last consumer, and if you're proposing to your given board of directors to buy all these new trucks (or change contracts to a company that has) why would you then cut the prices? I would hope there would be market pressure to do so from at least one good actor, but I don't know how certain that is at all.
- criley2 10y ago
  >"If you're talking about what I first thought of, which is things like groceries, housewares, the "every day things" that we all buy and consume without really thinking, I'm not sure that A: The prices on these items could go much lower than they already are and remain profitable" This is the wrong analysis. Price of goods is say, (Supplier Cost)+(Transit to Store)+(Profit Margin)=MSRP You're saying that MSRP can't go down without hurting Profit Margin. He's saying, Transit to Store will decrease, allowing MSRP to decrease without affecting Supplier Cost or Profit Margin. (Or Profit Margin can increase while MSRP remains the same)
  - sverige 10y ago
    But there's no guarantee that MSRP will go down. More likely that PM will increase.
    - seunosewa 10y ago
      Competition all but guarantees it, if there's competition.
      - FussyZeus 10y ago
        That's what I'm getting at. How many people price shop for household items and food? The majority I know have a brand that they buy all the time because of any number of reasons, and if the price doesn't go up but just stays where it is, how likely are they to change?
        stale2002 10y ago
        They why wouldn't companies just do that right now? If companies can make more money, they would already be doing that by raising prices!
        FussyZeus 10y ago
harryh 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
fjjrxcbdhx 10y ago
This assumption that everything will be cheaper seems a bit disingenuous, because why would these companies want to automate themselves so badly if they weren't going to keep most of the savings as profit? Even if prices were lowered by a few percent for some goods thanks to cheaper shipping, that's little help when you have no source of income. This will only exacerbate the demand-limited economic slump we're currently experiencing.
- harryh 10y ago
  Companies will want to automate because if they don't they will go out of business because their competitors will.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    For the prime example of this - look at the global shipping market right now. It's going at a loss right now due to the largest shippers building massive ships to bring down the cost/kg/km down bringing overcapacity to an unsustainable level.
  - fjjrxcbdhx 10y ago
    Regardless, that's not going to help an economy whose primary problem is a consumer base who can no longer afford to purchase goods in sufficient numbers.
    - harryh 10y ago
      I'm skeptical that you've identified the primary problem in the US economy. I would definitely rank two things higher: 1) Challenges that come about due to an aging population 2) An overall slow down in innovation (Cowen's "Great Stagnation" hypothesis)
      - fjjrxcbdhx 10y ago
        An unbalanced young-old demographic ratio is indicative of worsening economic conditions for average people. Looking at Japan, they have a population crisis because there's no time to start a family when you have lots of mandatory unpaid overtime. Thankfully we're not quite that far gone yet, but we're headed in that direction and are starting to face similar demographic problems. Innovation is slowing down because companies are preoccupied with irrationally slashing labor expenses, and R&D tends to be quite expensive so it gets cut significantly. The result is less income for consumers, who in turn buy fewer goods, which ultimately leads to even more cuts for labor.
xorgar831 10y ago
It might not be that sudden of a change, you may still need someone watching the truck remotely, so one truck driver could be responsible for multiple trucks. So you could have larger fleets with the same workforce too.
ChemicalWarfare 10y ago
>>> Yes, many jobs will be lost. But the prices of many goods will decrease. This remains to be seen. When corporations find ways to cut costs this typically results in higher profits (which there's nothing wrong with that per se) with consumers maybe seeing some cost reduction but not necessarily. Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs is a prime example of that.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
> But the prices of many goods will decrease. Yes, and if our billionaire overlords are feeling generous, perhaps some of those savings will "trickle down" to us peasants. But probably not...
barpet 10y ago
I do not think automation reduces the prices for consumers. In fact I think automation and cutting costs ( workforce ) will just lead to maintaining fat margins. This will just lead to creating another tier of "cheaper" goods and services. Meaning goods form even crappier materials. Endangering the environment because of scaling out to poorer countries like Africa and so on. Not good. "Reducing your income by 25% may sound bad, but if practically everything becomes ~20-30% cheaper" I do not think this stands as an argument. Just look at the costs of the livings vs incomes in "poorer" countries than US. You can be a middle class man somewhere but that still does not mean you will be entitled to buying "quality" goods or healthy food.
cushychicken 10y ago
Tons of people are misunderstanding the likely order of events that would decrease shipping costs related to automated long-haul trucking. It'd go like this: 1) One company develops and ships a working autonomous truck. They start selling to shipping companies, or roll their own. 2) The truck client/shipping company starts competing with other shipping companies by offering vastly lower prices on the same shipping. 3) Retailers flock to the automated shipping company because they're vastly cheaper. The first retailer to move and contract with them enjoys a brief competitive advantage over other companies by cutting retail prices slightly and gaining a market advantage. Eventually, other shipping firms pop up to service the other retailers' need for competitively priced trucking. 4) Supply of automated trucking catches up with retailer demand. Retailers are forced to, again, compete directly with one another on price for the same goods, but now the overhead of paying humans to manage shipping is gone. The doom and gloom comments about overcharging for products is a little ridiculous, IMO. Uber, Apple, Amazon, and Google are at each other's fucking throats for market share in this space. You bet your ass they'd fight tooth and nail with one another on price.

FussyZeus 10y ago

I agree with most everything you've said, the one point that I would contest is: > Yes, many jobs will be lost. But the prices of many goods will decrease. If you're talking about what I first thought of, which is things like groceries, housewares, the "every day things" that we all buy and consume without really thinking, I'm not sure that A: The prices on these items could go much lower than they already are and remain profitable, or B: That the producers of said goods (majority MASSIVE corporations with impressive names and product rosters, and the most likely early adopters of this technology) would reduce the prices in accordance with the reduction in cost. The trend now among these companies seems to be to squeeze every last cent out of every last consumer, and if you're proposing to your given board of directors to buy all these new trucks (or change contracts to a company that has) why would you then cut the prices? I would hope there would be market pressure to do so from at least one good actor, but I don't know how certain that is at all.

criley2 10y ago
>"If you're talking about what I first thought of, which is things like groceries, housewares, the "every day things" that we all buy and consume without really thinking, I'm not sure that A: The prices on these items could go much lower than they already are and remain profitable" This is the wrong analysis. Price of goods is say, (Supplier Cost)+(Transit to Store)+(Profit Margin)=MSRP You're saying that MSRP can't go down without hurting Profit Margin. He's saying, Transit to Store will decrease, allowing MSRP to decrease without affecting Supplier Cost or Profit Margin. (Or Profit Margin can increase while MSRP remains the same)
- sverige 10y ago
  But there's no guarantee that MSRP will go down. More likely that PM will increase.
  - seunosewa 10y ago
    Competition all but guarantees it, if there's competition.
    - FussyZeus 10y ago
      That's what I'm getting at. How many people price shop for household items and food? The majority I know have a brand that they buy all the time because of any number of reasons, and if the price doesn't go up but just stays where it is, how likely are they to change?
      - stale2002 10y ago
        They why wouldn't companies just do that right now? If companies can make more money, they would already be doing that by raising prices!
        FussyZeus 10y ago

harryh 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

fjjrxcbdhx 10y ago

This assumption that everything will be cheaper seems a bit disingenuous, because why would these companies want to automate themselves so badly if they weren't going to keep most of the savings as profit? Even if prices were lowered by a few percent for some goods thanks to cheaper shipping, that's little help when you have no source of income. This will only exacerbate the demand-limited economic slump we're currently experiencing.

harryh 10y ago
Companies will want to automate because if they don't they will go out of business because their competitors will.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  For the prime example of this - look at the global shipping market right now. It's going at a loss right now due to the largest shippers building massive ships to bring down the cost/kg/km down bringing overcapacity to an unsustainable level.
- fjjrxcbdhx 10y ago
  Regardless, that's not going to help an economy whose primary problem is a consumer base who can no longer afford to purchase goods in sufficient numbers.
  - harryh 10y ago
    I'm skeptical that you've identified the primary problem in the US economy. I would definitely rank two things higher: 1) Challenges that come about due to an aging population 2) An overall slow down in innovation (Cowen's "Great Stagnation" hypothesis)
    - fjjrxcbdhx 10y ago
      An unbalanced young-old demographic ratio is indicative of worsening economic conditions for average people. Looking at Japan, they have a population crisis because there's no time to start a family when you have lots of mandatory unpaid overtime. Thankfully we're not quite that far gone yet, but we're headed in that direction and are starting to face similar demographic problems. Innovation is slowing down because companies are preoccupied with irrationally slashing labor expenses, and R&D tends to be quite expensive so it gets cut significantly. The result is less income for consumers, who in turn buy fewer goods, which ultimately leads to even more cuts for labor.

xorgar831 10y ago

It might not be that sudden of a change, you may still need someone watching the truck remotely, so one truck driver could be responsible for multiple trucks. So you could have larger fleets with the same workforce too.

ChemicalWarfare 10y ago

>>> Yes, many jobs will be lost. But the prices of many goods will decrease. This remains to be seen. When corporations find ways to cut costs this typically results in higher profits (which there's nothing wrong with that per se) with consumers maybe seeing some cost reduction but not necessarily. Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs is a prime example of that.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

> But the prices of many goods will decrease. Yes, and if our billionaire overlords are feeling generous, perhaps some of those savings will "trickle down" to us peasants. But probably not...

barpet 10y ago

I do not think automation reduces the prices for consumers. In fact I think automation and cutting costs ( workforce ) will just lead to maintaining fat margins. This will just lead to creating another tier of "cheaper" goods and services. Meaning goods form even crappier materials. Endangering the environment because of scaling out to poorer countries like Africa and so on. Not good. "Reducing your income by 25% may sound bad, but if practically everything becomes ~20-30% cheaper" I do not think this stands as an argument. Just look at the costs of the livings vs incomes in "poorer" countries than US. You can be a middle class man somewhere but that still does not mean you will be entitled to buying "quality" goods or healthy food.

cushychicken 10y ago

Tons of people are misunderstanding the likely order of events that would decrease shipping costs related to automated long-haul trucking. It'd go like this: 1) One company develops and ships a working autonomous truck. They start selling to shipping companies, or roll their own. 2) The truck client/shipping company starts competing with other shipping companies by offering vastly lower prices on the same shipping. 3) Retailers flock to the automated shipping company because they're vastly cheaper. The first retailer to move and contract with them enjoys a brief competitive advantage over other companies by cutting retail prices slightly and gaining a market advantage. Eventually, other shipping firms pop up to service the other retailers' need for competitively priced trucking. 4) Supply of automated trucking catches up with retailer demand. Retailers are forced to, again, compete directly with one another on price for the same goods, but now the overhead of paying humans to manage shipping is gone. The doom and gloom comments about overcharging for products is a little ridiculous, IMO. Uber, Apple, Amazon, and Google are at each other's fucking throats for market share in this space. You bet your ass they'd fight tooth and nail with one another on price.