7 ms·

This is why they are striking against automation. Those 25K will be out of jobs. It's funny how conservative (anti-technology, stuck in the past, don't want t

This is why they are striking against automation. Those 25K will be out of jobs. It's funny how conservative (anti-technology, stuck in the past, don't want to make anything efficient) labor unions end up being when it suits them. It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and make it better for customers.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
causal 2y ago
You mean the remaining 25k will also be out of a job? The article linked above doesn't go into detail on what container royalties are, but it sounds like it was a protection from being laid off negotiated in the past. And in the context of AI so frequently discussed here, perhaps more workers will need those types of protections as automation takes hold elsewhere.
Workaccount2 2y ago
Everyone is in it for their own self interest. There are no liberals or conservatives. Their are people with lives that share common traits and a policy set that suits those traits best. Remember that Jesus (the generous saint of the needy) is the hero of conservatives and that liberals are the chief NIMBYs for affordable housing. Nobody has lifelong rigid beliefs, it's all a matter of convenience. Everyone is in it for themselves. *yes this is a generalization and you can find outliers. But don't let those outliers distract you from what is going on.
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  This sounds like psychological egoism: https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_5_Teleological_Theories_Egoism/Psychological_Egoism.htm#:~:text=First%2C%20psychological%20egoism%20is%20a,is%20motivated%20by%20self%20interest https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEX....
consteval 2y ago
> It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and make it better for customers This is a complete rewriting of history. The reason Uber "won" is because they operated on a loss. The reality is that running a Cab business typically has low overhead. You use phone lines, maybe a website, and then pay for cars and maintenance. Uber "innovated" the field by doing the exact same thing with MUCH higher operating costs. How did they provide a cheaper service then? That's the kicker, they never have. They just ate the loss. Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year. And that's how they won. Of course, now Uber is actually more expensive than your average cab. Which makes complete sense when you consider calling someone's phone has got to be a lot cheaper than running one of the largest networks in the country. And, is it really more convenient to tap around as opposed to make a call or even just stick out your hand? Maybe. But I think when it's double the price, people won't feel this way.
- asdfasdf1 2y ago
  Uber/Lift won not by being cheaper, but because their fixed fare prevented the typical taxi scams
  - consteval 2y ago
    Again, this is a rewriting. I'm sure this played a role, but Uber fares are not actually fixed! There's no "per mile" rate, the algorithm is a complete black box! They won because they were cheaper for the consumer.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      It's an up front cost that doesn't magically change during the journey, and you can pay on the app. That alone was an amazing selling point.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      Did you never take a cab pre Uber? It was a poor experience. At best it went ok. But you have to be constantly paying attention, know the local roads (when on vacation/business that didn't work, or even when it did, you are having to straight call out old boy for being a scummy scammer and taking the wrong streets), deal with the 'sorry the mileage ticker is broken' 'sorry I can't take credit cards' after saying they did at the start. Uber fixed a TON of that experience.
partiallypro 2y ago
Speaking of cab companies/Lyft/Uber, etc now similar to striking unions, those companies have a vested interest to block public transit expansion because it's a direct competitor. It's always been like this; we have to balance things out and not give into regulatory capture.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

causal 2y ago

You mean the remaining 25k will also be out of a job? The article linked above doesn't go into detail on what container royalties are, but it sounds like it was a protection from being laid off negotiated in the past. And in the context of AI so frequently discussed here, perhaps more workers will need those types of protections as automation takes hold elsewhere.

Workaccount2 2y ago

Everyone is in it for their own self interest. There are no liberals or conservatives. Their are people with lives that share common traits and a policy set that suits those traits best. Remember that Jesus (the generous saint of the needy) is the hero of conservatives and that liberals are the chief NIMBYs for affordable housing. Nobody has lifelong rigid beliefs, it's all a matter of convenience. Everyone is in it for themselves. *yes this is a generalization and you can find outliers. But don't let those outliers distract you from what is going on.

CaptainFever 2y ago
This sounds like psychological egoism: https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEXT/Chapter_5_Teleological_Theories_Egoism/Psychological_Egoism.htm#:~:text=First%2C%20psychological%20egoism%20is%20a,is%20motivated%20by%20self%20interest https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/ETHICS_TEX....

consteval 2y ago

> It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and make it better for customers This is a complete rewriting of history. The reason Uber "won" is because they operated on a loss. The reality is that running a Cab business typically has low overhead. You use phone lines, maybe a website, and then pay for cars and maintenance. Uber "innovated" the field by doing the exact same thing with MUCH higher operating costs. How did they provide a cheaper service then? That's the kicker, they never have. They just ate the loss. Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year. And that's how they won. Of course, now Uber is actually more expensive than your average cab. Which makes complete sense when you consider calling someone's phone has got to be a lot cheaper than running one of the largest networks in the country. And, is it really more convenient to tap around as opposed to make a call or even just stick out your hand? Maybe. But I think when it's double the price, people won't feel this way.

asdfasdf1 2y ago
Uber/Lift won not by being cheaper, but because their fixed fare prevented the typical taxi scams
- consteval 2y ago
  Again, this is a rewriting. I'm sure this played a role, but Uber fares are not actually fixed! There's no "per mile" rate, the algorithm is a complete black box! They won because they were cheaper for the consumer.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It's an up front cost that doesn't magically change during the journey, and you can pay on the app. That alone was an amazing selling point.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Did you never take a cab pre Uber? It was a poor experience. At best it went ok. But you have to be constantly paying attention, know the local roads (when on vacation/business that didn't work, or even when it did, you are having to straight call out old boy for being a scummy scammer and taking the wrong streets), deal with the 'sorry the mileage ticker is broken' 'sorry I can't take credit cards' after saying they did at the start. Uber fixed a TON of that experience.

partiallypro 2y ago

Speaking of cab companies/Lyft/Uber, etc now similar to striking unions, those companies have a vested interest to block public transit expansion because it's a direct competitor. It's always been like this; we have to balance things out and not give into regulatory capture.