6 ms·

> In fact 12 million jobs are in danger of being lost to automated cars. How are they going to benefit from that? Jobs are going to be lost anyways, whether fr

> In fact 12 million jobs are in danger of being lost to automated cars. How are they going to benefit from that? Jobs are going to be lost anyways, whether from cars or from a different technology. Are you arguing the problem is that people aren't able to continue to do trivial things which technology can easily replace them at? Or that they will not have a relevant skill / source of income? If the former than we should give hoes and scythes back to 90% of the population and get rid of agricultural machinery. If the later - it's a problem that needs to be addressed one way or another, self-driving cars are really a minor detail here..

ThomPete 10y ago
I was responding to the OP who said it wasn't a zero zum game. Not sure why we are suddenly discussing what I propose instead. All I am saying is that it's easy to forget that real people are effected by progress and that the narrative that we all benefit is kind of disingenuous from that perspective and I believe we need to think harder on what to do about that because it's only going to increase.
- cushychicken 10y ago
  That was a quick backpedal. :)
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    In what way?
- it_learnses 10y ago
  Yep, agreed. Universal basic income is one solution that keeps coming back as a silver bullet. Not sure what the downsides are yet, but I'm pretty certain that there's still going to be haves and have nots: just a few rich that own all the automation and resources vs the rest of us just surviving on basic income. Maybe we'll all be ok immersed in VR adventures as long as we're fed and clothed...
  - rfghsfgt 10y ago
    One danger is that it lowers the incentive to work.
    - ThomPete 10y ago
      You will always be incenified to work when it's basic income at least the UBI version as it's not the negative tax version that some talk about.
    - hx87 10y ago
      If there is little need for work, extrinsic incentives to work don't matter much. Intrinsic incentives (i.e. work is fulfilling) will be enough.
      - rfghsfgt 10y ago
        But that often isn't enough to get people to work on boring but necessary work.
        hx87 10y ago
        > boring but necessary work Sounds like a fantastic job for machines! Humor aside, even with UBI you will always increase your income and wealth if you put in extra work, unless some current schemes where your income stagnates or even falls if you earn enough to put yourself outside some arbitrary bracket.
  - wcummings 10y ago
    >Not sure what the downsides are yet It's fantastically expensive.
    - Retric 10y ago
      As a share of the USA's Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.5 percent. Single payer systems like Canada are 10.9% and have similar or better health outcomes. So, ~4.4% GDP is pure healthcare waste. Social Security is 4.9% GDP and welfare is another ~4%. So, right now we could use 13.3% GDP or 7k per person in the US. However, that 7k would remove the justification for a lot of low income tax breaks freeing up enough to hit the 1,000$ per month range without raising net taxes. Now, this would take a huge shift at the federal and state levels, but compared to say the 'New Deal' it's not actually that large a change in policy. Further, while some people would stay at home, it would also free up a lot of jobs and inefficiency. The real problem is a small but very influential slice of the population would be worse off. PS: Remember, every policy change is going to make somebody worse off, so harming someone is not enough to make a change bad.
finid 10y ago
People seem to be too focused on jobs that will be lost because of automated cars/vehicles, but are not looking at the jobs that will be created because of that. Think back to when people were just becoming aware of computers and how they will change the workplace. The same arguments were made - high unemployment, etc. Look where we are today. Imagine a world without computers! I see the same for automated driving. It will lead to the creation of more jobs than it will kill. Yes, some jobs will go, just as computers killed some professions. Get ready for change folks. Embrace or go the way of the dodo
- ThomPete 10y ago
  What jobs are you talking about? That's the question. Those jobs you claim have come instead, where are they? The computer revolution is decades old now. You must be able to point to some jobs that actually provide more, just claiming it will create more while the reality is that it doesn't unless we are talking wallmart jobs isn't an argument thats more a religious belief. There are around 3-4 million software developers in the US. 18million worldwide. Those and some other areas of STEM jobs are providing some of us with a future and rising income. But for most other people they are on the wrong side of that divide.
  - finid 10y ago
    What jobs are you talking about? That's the question. Those jobs you claim have come instead, where are they? The computer revolution is decades old now. So you were not old enough to be part of that discussion. But what jobs am I talking about? Back then, the counter argument was computers will create jobs for those who have to design them and those who have to maintain them. That was the best they could muster. Very little was said about computer networking back then. But today, we have developers, system and network admins, operations people. And that's just those that are directly involved in managing computers. So don't panic. Robots, autonomous vehicles will create more jobs than they'll kill. Humans will be needed to build and maintain then. In many instances, they will need to be networked. Humans will be needed to set up and maintain such network of robots and fleets of autonomous vehicles. The future is bright. Embrace it!
alexbeloi 10y ago
I'm pro self-driving cars. But you have to admit, there's going to be riots in the streets when it's no longer economical to pay a human to drive a trunk/taxi. Look at the protest people have over Uber, and they're not even destroying jobs, they're just moving them from one place to another. And already you can see that non-trivial parts of society can't handle that. There's going to be protests, poverty and chaos, and eventually the market will redistribute the workforce but short of a major welfare program like 'basic income' I don't think we can have any illusion of this being a soft transition.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > But you have to admit, there's going to be riots in the streets when it's no longer economical to pay a human to drive a trunk/taxi. Why would there be riots in the streets for self-driving cars in particular? Like when there were riots for the assembly-line or the tractor? There will be riots for education, healthcare and opportunity - and probably there should be. Technological progress of civilization should be something more meaningful than the rich getting richer.
  - alexbeloi 10y ago
    >Like when there were riots for the assembly-line or the tractor? Yes, exactly like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-loom_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-loom_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots

ThomPete 10y ago

I was responding to the OP who said it wasn't a zero zum game. Not sure why we are suddenly discussing what I propose instead. All I am saying is that it's easy to forget that real people are effected by progress and that the narrative that we all benefit is kind of disingenuous from that perspective and I believe we need to think harder on what to do about that because it's only going to increase.

cushychicken 10y ago
That was a quick backpedal. :)
- ThomPete 10y ago
  In what way?
it_learnses 10y ago
Yep, agreed. Universal basic income is one solution that keeps coming back as a silver bullet. Not sure what the downsides are yet, but I'm pretty certain that there's still going to be haves and have nots: just a few rich that own all the automation and resources vs the rest of us just surviving on basic income. Maybe we'll all be ok immersed in VR adventures as long as we're fed and clothed...
- rfghsfgt 10y ago
  One danger is that it lowers the incentive to work.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    You will always be incenified to work when it's basic income at least the UBI version as it's not the negative tax version that some talk about.
  - hx87 10y ago
    If there is little need for work, extrinsic incentives to work don't matter much. Intrinsic incentives (i.e. work is fulfilling) will be enough.
    - rfghsfgt 10y ago
      But that often isn't enough to get people to work on boring but necessary work.
      - hx87 10y ago
        > boring but necessary work Sounds like a fantastic job for machines! Humor aside, even with UBI you will always increase your income and wealth if you put in extra work, unless some current schemes where your income stagnates or even falls if you earn enough to put yourself outside some arbitrary bracket.
- wcummings 10y ago
  >Not sure what the downsides are yet It's fantastically expensive.
  - Retric 10y ago
    As a share of the USA's Gross Domestic Product, health spending accounted for 17.5 percent. Single payer systems like Canada are 10.9% and have similar or better health outcomes. So, ~4.4% GDP is pure healthcare waste. Social Security is 4.9% GDP and welfare is another ~4%. So, right now we could use 13.3% GDP or 7k per person in the US. However, that 7k would remove the justification for a lot of low income tax breaks freeing up enough to hit the 1,000$ per month range without raising net taxes. Now, this would take a huge shift at the federal and state levels, but compared to say the 'New Deal' it's not actually that large a change in policy. Further, while some people would stay at home, it would also free up a lot of jobs and inefficiency. The real problem is a small but very influential slice of the population would be worse off. PS: Remember, every policy change is going to make somebody worse off, so harming someone is not enough to make a change bad.

finid 10y ago

People seem to be too focused on jobs that will be lost because of automated cars/vehicles, but are not looking at the jobs that will be created because of that. Think back to when people were just becoming aware of computers and how they will change the workplace. The same arguments were made - high unemployment, etc. Look where we are today. Imagine a world without computers! I see the same for automated driving. It will lead to the creation of more jobs than it will kill. Yes, some jobs will go, just as computers killed some professions. Get ready for change folks. Embrace or go the way of the dodo

ThomPete 10y ago
What jobs are you talking about? That's the question. Those jobs you claim have come instead, where are they? The computer revolution is decades old now. You must be able to point to some jobs that actually provide more, just claiming it will create more while the reality is that it doesn't unless we are talking wallmart jobs isn't an argument thats more a religious belief. There are around 3-4 million software developers in the US. 18million worldwide. Those and some other areas of STEM jobs are providing some of us with a future and rising income. But for most other people they are on the wrong side of that divide.
- finid 10y ago
  What jobs are you talking about? That's the question. Those jobs you claim have come instead, where are they? The computer revolution is decades old now. So you were not old enough to be part of that discussion. But what jobs am I talking about? Back then, the counter argument was computers will create jobs for those who have to design them and those who have to maintain them. That was the best they could muster. Very little was said about computer networking back then. But today, we have developers, system and network admins, operations people. And that's just those that are directly involved in managing computers. So don't panic. Robots, autonomous vehicles will create more jobs than they'll kill. Humans will be needed to build and maintain then. In many instances, they will need to be networked. Humans will be needed to set up and maintain such network of robots and fleets of autonomous vehicles. The future is bright. Embrace it!

alexbeloi 10y ago

I'm pro self-driving cars. But you have to admit, there's going to be riots in the streets when it's no longer economical to pay a human to drive a trunk/taxi. Look at the protest people have over Uber, and they're not even destroying jobs, they're just moving them from one place to another. And already you can see that non-trivial parts of society can't handle that. There's going to be protests, poverty and chaos, and eventually the market will redistribute the workforce but short of a major welfare program like 'basic income' I don't think we can have any illusion of this being a soft transition.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> But you have to admit, there's going to be riots in the streets when it's no longer economical to pay a human to drive a trunk/taxi. Why would there be riots in the streets for self-driving cars in particular? Like when there were riots for the assembly-line or the tractor? There will be riots for education, healthcare and opportunity - and probably there should be. Technological progress of civilization should be something more meaningful than the rich getting richer.
- alexbeloi 10y ago
  >Like when there were riots for the assembly-line or the tractor? Yes, exactly like that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-loom_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-loom_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Riots