2 ms·
> assuming this is actually remotely profitable Why wouldn't it be? > instead of improve their conditions I wouldn't want to drive a truck. To be frank, I re
by echelon 2y ago
> assuming this is actually remotely profitable
Why wouldn't it be?
> instead of improve their conditions
I wouldn't want to drive a truck. To be frank, I really don't want to answer Jira tickets and write plumbing code either. I sincerely hope that none of what most of us do today has to be a job in fifty years.
- Ygg2 2y ago> Why wouldn't it be? My debt is your asset, and vice versa. Tell me, what does the autonomous truck drink? Or eat? The less you pay the driver the less money does driver have to buy whatever he is carrying.
- jfengel 2y agoThat doesn't automatically mean that the economy drops. The truck driver gets the next-least-undesirable job. That may pay almost the same, or it may not exist. It depends. It's never as simple as "we automated the job so the person is useless."
- Ygg2 2y ago> The truck driver gets the next-least-undesirable job. That the promise but is it the reality? Deaths of despair suggest it isn't. Deindustrialization is an issue once you move supply chains overseas or to the robots, with it whole parts of country die. No truck drivers means less money spent on truck stops, motels (for sleep), and in their local economy (no pubs, bowling alley, etc.) But the threat isn't just replacing drivers, it is replacing entire eco systems of jobs.