4 ms·

Two long term trends: automation car sharing/hiring Both mean that in the case of autos, Trump won't be able to bring manufacturing home in terms of jobs.

pavlov 10y ago
In energy policy, Trump wants to make coal more affordable compared to renewables. Applying similar logic, he should work to enact legislation to prohibit automated vehicles or make them very expensive so they can't be deployed widely. In 2020, Trump can point to this piece of legislation and tell voters: "Silicon Valley billionaires tried to put a million truckers and taxi drivers out of work, but I prevented that!" I wonder how that would sit with Peter Thiel. Anyone who expects the upcoming all-Republican government to be innovation-friendly may be in for a rude awakening. I have a feeling that many "job protection" solutions from Congress will be similar in spirit to the state laws that prevent Tesla from selling cars directly. In other words, there will be more legislation that's friendly to established business but hostile to SV's cherished "disruption". (Republican voters said loud and clear that they haven't liked being disrupted.) EDIT: I expanded this comment into a post on Medium: https://medium.com/@pauli/disruption-in-america-please-hold-d997d6cf9461 https://medium.com/@pauli/disruption-in-america-please-hold-...
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  > Republican voters said loud and clear that they haven't liked being disrupted. This is a perfect comment.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Great point. People pay too much attention to the republican rhetoric about reduced regulation, spending, etc. The reality is that they help out their friends. There's only one way to generate jobs for coal miners.
  - phkahler 10y ago
    >> There's only one way to generate jobs for coal miners. Subsidize electric vehicles?
  - snsr 10y ago
    > The reality is that they help out their friends. Also known as corruption.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Well Peter Thiel can enjoy the consequences of his actions...
- ssharp 10y ago
  I find Trump repugnant and don't think he's remotely fit to lead the U.S. but what has he said that makes you think he's going to be against private-sector-driven innovation? Sectors that require, or are helped substantially by, the government to innovate will almost certainly suffer but what makes you think he would interfere with private enterprise? Trump doesn't like business regulation and seems to want to make it easier for businesses to operate. Obviously that has negative consequences some some things but would also mean he wouldn't interfere. Where he does want to make changes is in regards to trade and outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to foreign countries. As far as Republican leadership in the House and Senate, there is no doubt that they'll play favorites with lobbyists but Trump's main appeal was that he WASN'T like that. If he is like that, we'll have a Democratic Congress in two years and a new president in four.
  - scld 10y ago
    As far as what he has said, he wants to (to paraphrase) "bring back manufacturing jobs" and "make stuff in america again". The only way that happens is if the current way becomes prohibitively expensive or the "old" way becomes absurdly cheap. Either alone is probably not enough, barring some massive depression and wage reduction.
  - celticninja 10y ago
    He wants it to be easier for certain businesses to operate, so he wants to cut environmental protection to cut the costs of companies that pollute, this means they can produce more (pollute more) and employ more people. He could well be anti automated driving vehicles, it is widely accepted that one of the first casualties of the introduction of automated vehicles will belong distance lorry drivers. There are approx 3.5 million drivers employed in the US right now, even if we see only 25% of jobs going in the next 10 years that is an extra 850,000 unemployed people. And not only are they unemployed but their skill set is no longer required, so they are either long term unemployed or they need to retrain. I imagine many will be older people and they will not be in a position to retrain significantly, so they become competition for low paid manual work, further depressing wages in this sector. So even if you do get a job the wage is likely to be much lower than that of a truck driver. These could be protected (for a while) if they introduced anti-automation policies and laws. This sort of short term thinking is right up the republican street.
Spooky23 10y ago
Both of those things can have regulatory bullets put into their heads, which can delay them for years.

pavlov 10y ago

In energy policy, Trump wants to make coal more affordable compared to renewables. Applying similar logic, he should work to enact legislation to prohibit automated vehicles or make them very expensive so they can't be deployed widely. In 2020, Trump can point to this piece of legislation and tell voters: "Silicon Valley billionaires tried to put a million truckers and taxi drivers out of work, but I prevented that!" I wonder how that would sit with Peter Thiel. Anyone who expects the upcoming all-Republican government to be innovation-friendly may be in for a rude awakening. I have a feeling that many "job protection" solutions from Congress will be similar in spirit to the state laws that prevent Tesla from selling cars directly. In other words, there will be more legislation that's friendly to established business but hostile to SV's cherished "disruption". (Republican voters said loud and clear that they haven't liked being disrupted.) EDIT: I expanded this comment into a post on Medium: https://medium.com/@pauli/disruption-in-america-please-hold-d997d6cf9461 https://medium.com/@pauli/disruption-in-america-please-hold-...

lifeisstillgood 10y ago
> Republican voters said loud and clear that they haven't liked being disrupted. This is a perfect comment.
Spooky23 10y ago
Great point. People pay too much attention to the republican rhetoric about reduced regulation, spending, etc. The reality is that they help out their friends. There's only one way to generate jobs for coal miners.
- phkahler 10y ago
  >> There's only one way to generate jobs for coal miners. Subsidize electric vehicles?
- snsr 10y ago
  > The reality is that they help out their friends. Also known as corruption.
raverbashing 10y ago
Well Peter Thiel can enjoy the consequences of his actions...
ssharp 10y ago
I find Trump repugnant and don't think he's remotely fit to lead the U.S. but what has he said that makes you think he's going to be against private-sector-driven innovation? Sectors that require, or are helped substantially by, the government to innovate will almost certainly suffer but what makes you think he would interfere with private enterprise? Trump doesn't like business regulation and seems to want to make it easier for businesses to operate. Obviously that has negative consequences some some things but would also mean he wouldn't interfere. Where he does want to make changes is in regards to trade and outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to foreign countries. As far as Republican leadership in the House and Senate, there is no doubt that they'll play favorites with lobbyists but Trump's main appeal was that he WASN'T like that. If he is like that, we'll have a Democratic Congress in two years and a new president in four.
- scld 10y ago
  As far as what he has said, he wants to (to paraphrase) "bring back manufacturing jobs" and "make stuff in america again". The only way that happens is if the current way becomes prohibitively expensive or the "old" way becomes absurdly cheap. Either alone is probably not enough, barring some massive depression and wage reduction.
- celticninja 10y ago
  He wants it to be easier for certain businesses to operate, so he wants to cut environmental protection to cut the costs of companies that pollute, this means they can produce more (pollute more) and employ more people. He could well be anti automated driving vehicles, it is widely accepted that one of the first casualties of the introduction of automated vehicles will belong distance lorry drivers. There are approx 3.5 million drivers employed in the US right now, even if we see only 25% of jobs going in the next 10 years that is an extra 850,000 unemployed people. And not only are they unemployed but their skill set is no longer required, so they are either long term unemployed or they need to retrain. I imagine many will be older people and they will not be in a position to retrain significantly, so they become competition for low paid manual work, further depressing wages in this sector. So even if you do get a job the wage is likely to be much lower than that of a truck driver. These could be protected (for a while) if they introduced anti-automation policies and laws. This sort of short term thinking is right up the republican street.

Spooky23 10y ago

Both of those things can have regulatory bullets put into their heads, which can delay them for years.