4 ms·

Uber invested a lot of money into self-driving cars. Presumably a coop isn't spending money on automating away their workers.

discodave 6y ago
They spent a lot of money subsidizing rides. It would be nice if they were making losses to plough money into R&D, but that is/was not the case.
CameronNemo 6y ago
That is actually an interesting point. Why would I, as a driver, fund research and development aimed at making my skills worthless?
- hobofan 6y ago
  Because you own part of the co-op, and it's value would go up if that research succeeds? I think co-ops can actually be a good way of handling technology replacing manual labor. The profits made from the technological advancements can be put in a dedicated trust of the co-op that is focused on retraining the workers for new positions. With that you could handle inevitable technological progress.
  - yellowapple 6y ago
    > Because you own part of the co-op, and it's value would go up if that research succeeds? That ownership is contingent on you working for the co-op, which doesn't seem very likely if a robot took your job. That said, there are a couple ways to work around this: 1. Flip the ownership model to a customer cooperative (or a customer/worker hybrid cooperative), thus moving the decisionmaking - and the incentives as a result - from workers to customers (which can and often do overlap). Customer cooperatives are a proven model here in the US (credit unions are probably the most widely known example). 2. Use automation to multiply labor rather than replace it. Replacing a drivers with cars at a 1:1 ratio obviously doesn't leave much room for drivers, but replacing them at a 1:10 ratio (or somesuch) can mean converting drivers into owner-operators of "squads" of cars. This depends on there being enough of a customer base to warrant this multiplication; for this to work, it's best paired with a massive expansion of that customer base (adding a bunch more cities, for example, or extending service areas, or slashing fares).
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Skills is a stretch. Having a driver's license in the US is a pretty low bar for entry for being a rideshare driver.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  competition and because if you own a share of a future technology you're still standing to gain financially. It's not like tech companies not routinely also innovate away their own tech. Software developers also work on tools that make software development easier.
- hkt 6y ago
  Drivers don't have an incentive, but car manufacturers do. The dream for Uber was a robofleet of driverless cars, which can still happen; it'll be General Motors getting into the taxi trade if such a thing ever became feasible.
- throwinreturn 6y ago
  That would probably be competition. A monopolist corporation has no incentive to improve its capital if it gets its profit anyway (c.f. the dismal state of DSL and cable). But if it's not a monopolist, it might be forced to anyway. It's the same thing at a worker cooperative, or for that matter at a heavily unionized workplace: the workers have no incentive to automate themselves out of a job, but may collectively understand that if they don't, the business will go under and they'll all be left without jobs.

discodave 6y ago

They spent a lot of money subsidizing rides. It would be nice if they were making losses to plough money into R&D, but that is/was not the case.

CameronNemo 6y ago

That is actually an interesting point. Why would I, as a driver, fund research and development aimed at making my skills worthless?

hobofan 6y ago
Because you own part of the co-op, and it's value would go up if that research succeeds? I think co-ops can actually be a good way of handling technology replacing manual labor. The profits made from the technological advancements can be put in a dedicated trust of the co-op that is focused on retraining the workers for new positions. With that you could handle inevitable technological progress.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > Because you own part of the co-op, and it's value would go up if that research succeeds? That ownership is contingent on you working for the co-op, which doesn't seem very likely if a robot took your job. That said, there are a couple ways to work around this: 1. Flip the ownership model to a customer cooperative (or a customer/worker hybrid cooperative), thus moving the decisionmaking - and the incentives as a result - from workers to customers (which can and often do overlap). Customer cooperatives are a proven model here in the US (credit unions are probably the most widely known example). 2. Use automation to multiply labor rather than replace it. Replacing a drivers with cars at a 1:1 ratio obviously doesn't leave much room for drivers, but replacing them at a 1:10 ratio (or somesuch) can mean converting drivers into owner-operators of "squads" of cars. This depends on there being enough of a customer base to warrant this multiplication; for this to work, it's best paired with a massive expansion of that customer base (adding a bunch more cities, for example, or extending service areas, or slashing fares).
oh_sigh 6y ago
Skills is a stretch. Having a driver's license in the US is a pretty low bar for entry for being a rideshare driver.
Barrin92 6y ago
competition and because if you own a share of a future technology you're still standing to gain financially. It's not like tech companies not routinely also innovate away their own tech. Software developers also work on tools that make software development easier.
hkt 6y ago
Drivers don't have an incentive, but car manufacturers do. The dream for Uber was a robofleet of driverless cars, which can still happen; it'll be General Motors getting into the taxi trade if such a thing ever became feasible.
throwinreturn 6y ago
That would probably be competition. A monopolist corporation has no incentive to improve its capital if it gets its profit anyway (c.f. the dismal state of DSL and cable). But if it's not a monopolist, it might be forced to anyway. It's the same thing at a worker cooperative, or for that matter at a heavily unionized workplace: the workers have no incentive to automate themselves out of a job, but may collectively understand that if they don't, the business will go under and they'll all be left without jobs.