5 ms·

The question of the self-driving car is much more complicated I think than the benefit it will bring. The consequences to the labor market will be interesting t

The question of the self-driving car is much more complicated I think than the benefit it will bring. The consequences to the labor market will be interesting to say the least. Just imagine. No taxi drivers No UPS delivery truck drivers (automated delivery anyone) No truckers Less cars produced, less people building cars. Less doctors, hospitals etc due to less accidents. I don't remember who said that we are entering a period of massive labor change. A second industrial age where there is less need for labor. The first one brought marxism and communism what will this one bring?

beedogs 15y ago
True socialism is my guess.
- jgmmo 15y ago
  Socialism is impossible, due to the inability to use economic calculation when the means of production are State controlled. When you don't have profits, and you don't have market prices, then you have no idea when you should be switching away from some resources and using others. Resources get squandered, there's no way to make sure they go to their most valued use. That's the beauty of Capitalism, we make sure resources go to where they are most needed by selling it to the highest bidder. Ex: If copper prices go up, some people - those who can - will substitute away from it, thus allowing the copper to go to it's most valued use. If interested, I recommend 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth' by Ludvig Von Mises [http://mises.org/econcalc.asp http://mises.org/econcalc.asp] Also good is Friedrich Hayek's 'Competition as a Discovery Procedure' [http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae5_3_3.pdf http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae5_3_3.pdf]
  - UK-AL 15y ago
    You do know there are socialist models that also use markets?
swombat 15y ago
Don't forget a huge amount of space reclaimed on the roads and in city centre parking lots. Most cars are sitting idle for 90+% of every day. With self-driving cars, you need 1/10 the number of cars to achieve the same result (maybe 2/10 to deal with rush hours).
oleganza 15y ago
It's incorrect to say "less need for labor" because labor in general is the most scarce resource (it's easy to prove: we have unused natural resources and capital always requires labor to make them work and maintain them). This is exactly why everybody tries to build capital which makes labor more efficient. It is clearly more efficient for a man to control 10 cars with a computer instead of the one with his bare hands. What other 9 persons would do? Either control more cars (if there rises a demand for them) or shift to remaining, more important processes where the labor is still less efficient (and thus costs more), or any combination of these. Think of it like "we solved the problem with cars, lets now move on the next task". And as you know, existing capital and technology lets people learn and adapt more and more efficiently. So it's not "progressing economy needs less labor", but rather "progressing economy makes labor more efficient by solving some productivity problems and shifting labor where unsolved, more urgent problems remain."
- rkaplan 15y ago
  True, but those unsolved, more urgent problems often require more educated labor. Many taxi drivers who find themselves out of a job likely don't have the skills necessary to quickly reintegrate into the labor market solving the tougher problems you're talking about. As machines continue to replace humans in tasks that can be automated, fewer unskilled jobs will be left for less-educated segments of the labor force. As technology automates new processes that previously required human labor, the educational barrier to entry becomes higher for the jobs that are left, because the easier productivity problems have been solved.
  - UK-AL 15y ago
    Yes indeed. This is why I'm so interested in the educational revolution that is currently happening. Education is important in this situation. The good thing is that the higher end jobs tend to be creative(Research), and in near infinite supply if you can get money flowing into them. You can never have enough inventions or new technologies.
inconditus 15y ago
Is this a serious argument? One could say the same thing about: 1) The advent of modern gardening and genetically modified crops. With increased efficiency, where will the extra farmers go? 2) The advent of computers. What will happen to books? The tree cutters? The people who ship the trees to the lumber plant? I could go on and on about ANY technological advance in the last 200 years. I don't see how cars are any different that will bring "marxism or communism".
- analyst74 15y ago
  I have similar feeling. Heck, invention of farming have caused many the hunters and gatherers to lose their jobs! I can't believe how "taking away jobs" sort of argument against technological advancement keeps showing up over and over, despite being refuted every time.
  - saraid216 15y ago
    My favorite comeback is, "Think of all those poor switchboard operators that the Internet put out on the street."
  - ericd 15y ago
    Eh, it might be right one of those times. People have been retreating up the skill chain as technology has become more and more advanced. If we could make a tool that does everything as well as humans for much less, society would have to change massively. It has in the past for lesser changes in technology.
    - learc83 15y ago
      >If we could make a tool that does everything as well as humans That goes so far beyond anything we have any experience with that it's impossible to speculate. Every technological advance in history has been a labor saving device; a device that does everything as well as humans is no longer a tool, it's our replacement (i.e., strong AI). >People have been retreating up the skill chain as technology has become more and more advanced. The majority of jobs created by industrialization required less skill than previous jobs (e.g., farmers to assembly line workers).
UK-AL 15y ago
Usually the savings from employing these people, will end up being spent somewhere else(More eating out for example?). Allowing a different sector to grow to compensate. The money being spent on their salaries does not disappear... and has to spent or invested somewhere.

beedogs 15y ago

True socialism is my guess.

jgmmo 15y ago
Socialism is impossible, due to the inability to use economic calculation when the means of production are State controlled. When you don't have profits, and you don't have market prices, then you have no idea when you should be switching away from some resources and using others. Resources get squandered, there's no way to make sure they go to their most valued use. That's the beauty of Capitalism, we make sure resources go to where they are most needed by selling it to the highest bidder. Ex: If copper prices go up, some people - those who can - will substitute away from it, thus allowing the copper to go to it's most valued use. If interested, I recommend 'Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth' by Ludvig Von Mises [http://mises.org/econcalc.asp http://mises.org/econcalc.asp] Also good is Friedrich Hayek's 'Competition as a Discovery Procedure' [http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae5_3_3.pdf http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae5_3_3.pdf]
- UK-AL 15y ago
  You do know there are socialist models that also use markets?

swombat 15y ago

Don't forget a huge amount of space reclaimed on the roads and in city centre parking lots. Most cars are sitting idle for 90+% of every day. With self-driving cars, you need 1/10 the number of cars to achieve the same result (maybe 2/10 to deal with rush hours).

oleganza 15y ago

It's incorrect to say "less need for labor" because labor in general is the most scarce resource (it's easy to prove: we have unused natural resources and capital always requires labor to make them work and maintain them). This is exactly why everybody tries to build capital which makes labor more efficient. It is clearly more efficient for a man to control 10 cars with a computer instead of the one with his bare hands. What other 9 persons would do? Either control more cars (if there rises a demand for them) or shift to remaining, more important processes where the labor is still less efficient (and thus costs more), or any combination of these. Think of it like "we solved the problem with cars, lets now move on the next task". And as you know, existing capital and technology lets people learn and adapt more and more efficiently. So it's not "progressing economy needs less labor", but rather "progressing economy makes labor more efficient by solving some productivity problems and shifting labor where unsolved, more urgent problems remain."

rkaplan 15y ago
True, but those unsolved, more urgent problems often require more educated labor. Many taxi drivers who find themselves out of a job likely don't have the skills necessary to quickly reintegrate into the labor market solving the tougher problems you're talking about. As machines continue to replace humans in tasks that can be automated, fewer unskilled jobs will be left for less-educated segments of the labor force. As technology automates new processes that previously required human labor, the educational barrier to entry becomes higher for the jobs that are left, because the easier productivity problems have been solved.
- UK-AL 15y ago
  Yes indeed. This is why I'm so interested in the educational revolution that is currently happening. Education is important in this situation. The good thing is that the higher end jobs tend to be creative(Research), and in near infinite supply if you can get money flowing into them. You can never have enough inventions or new technologies.

inconditus 15y ago

Is this a serious argument? One could say the same thing about: 1) The advent of modern gardening and genetically modified crops. With increased efficiency, where will the extra farmers go? 2) The advent of computers. What will happen to books? The tree cutters? The people who ship the trees to the lumber plant? I could go on and on about ANY technological advance in the last 200 years. I don't see how cars are any different that will bring "marxism or communism".

analyst74 15y ago
I have similar feeling. Heck, invention of farming have caused many the hunters and gatherers to lose their jobs! I can't believe how "taking away jobs" sort of argument against technological advancement keeps showing up over and over, despite being refuted every time.
- saraid216 15y ago
  My favorite comeback is, "Think of all those poor switchboard operators that the Internet put out on the street."
- ericd 15y ago
  Eh, it might be right one of those times. People have been retreating up the skill chain as technology has become more and more advanced. If we could make a tool that does everything as well as humans for much less, society would have to change massively. It has in the past for lesser changes in technology.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >If we could make a tool that does everything as well as humans That goes so far beyond anything we have any experience with that it's impossible to speculate. Every technological advance in history has been a labor saving device; a device that does everything as well as humans is no longer a tool, it's our replacement (i.e., strong AI). >People have been retreating up the skill chain as technology has become more and more advanced. The majority of jobs created by industrialization required less skill than previous jobs (e.g., farmers to assembly line workers).

UK-AL 15y ago

Usually the savings from employing these people, will end up being spent somewhere else(More eating out for example?). Allowing a different sector to grow to compensate. The money being spent on their salaries does not disappear... and has to spent or invested somewhere.