4 ms·

I was talking with someone visiting from Florida the other day and they were talking about how Waymo is slurping money that would have otherwise stayed in the l

by ultimoo 2mo ago

I was talking with someone visiting from Florida the other day and they were talking about how Waymo is slurping money that would have otherwise stayed in the local economy. E.g. you pay an uber driver, the uber driver pays the grocery store, etc. This is something that had never occurred to me since I love taking Waymos here in the bay area. I guess Waymos operating in Florida need local labor to maintain and clean the cars? How are others thinking about this?

sashank_1509 2mo ago
There is some need for local labor, but it’s an order of magnitude lower than the number of Uber drivers that get paid. I never thought of this, but I think this is a valid concern. Uber drivers will end up spending in their locality while money that goes to Waymo will be used for further investment that’s probably concentrated in the Bay Area. I will say this though, Uber it self somehow takes > 50% of the cut a driver and makes and once again spends it on engineers in California, so Uber is guilty of this same issue, but Waymo is probably worse at this than Uber. In general AI is guilty of destroying the demand for normal human labour and accumulating money into companies with highly paid engineers.
- tuesdaynight 2mo ago
  Someday some politician will propose a law to require companies to maintain most part of their revenue in the city where it was acquired. I know that it will not necessarily be a good thing, but it doesn't matter
darkwizard42 2mo ago
The Uber driver likely gets a different job, probably something a little less stressful and low paying (and frankly dangerous) than Uber.
- superfrank 2mo ago
  Usually if you're working a stressful, low paying, dangerous job it's because you don't have many other options. I'm pretty sure "just get another job" is easier said than done for most Uber drivers
  - darkwizard42 2mo ago
    I think Uber is openly stressful, but is not transparently low paying or dangerous and that is why people are working it. On face value, it seems easy to earn with your existing vehicle, but most drivers dramatically overestimate earnings after depreciation, fuel, maintenance on their vehicle. Additionally, Uber puts the driver in the most dangerous situations (pickups and drops on active roadways) which aren't apparent to the driver. Driving for 6 hours a day will eventually wear on you. So, yes, I think drivers severely underestimate the risks and rewards and that is why another job is likely better (which is loosely defined here)
weatherlite 2mo ago
For sure , this is gonna kill driver jobs and/or lower their wages due to the increased competition. The upside is cheaper mobility for everyone - in general tech like this should have a deflationary effect (We're still not seeing this enough). Think robots building an entire city in months/couple of years instead of a decade, that would cheapen housing dramatically. We're obviously not there yet.
- ragazzina 2mo ago
  >The upside is cheaper mobility for everyone Why should Google leave money on the table? They will raise the price until it's just below what people are already paying.
  - weatherlite 2mo ago
    Not an expert but in general that's usually not how tech works. It generally gets commodified and cheaper : TVs, mobile phones, computers etc etc. They're either becoming cheaper or you get a way better product for the same price (think of today's TVs that make the 80s tvs look like something from the middle ages). Yes Google in the initial decade will possibly have a big head start but in the end Tesla and a bunch of Chinese names will also run robo taxis in the U.S. So my take: efficiency and competition should bring prices down in a non broken economy.
    - ragazzina 2mo ago
      >not how tech works. It generally gets commodified and cheaper: TVs Hardware gets commodified and cheaper, not services usually. Do you pay less for cable tv now compared to 20 years ago?
      - weatherlite 2mo ago
        Its complex. Cell phone plans became way cheaper in my country than 20 years ago, they used to be shockingly expensive. People old enough will remember SMS weren't cheap and a single minute of call was shockingly expensive. I'd same similar thing happened with the internet, you can now get a basic plan for cheaper than 20 years ago. Is it as cheap as it should be? Probably not. It's interesting this hasn't happened with cable I somewhat agree with you there. However you have alternatives that are just as good like Netflix and cost 20 bucks or less if you can live with ads.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
xnx 2mo ago
This is a clever talking point from Uber that doesn't get the same attention for any other nationwide company. Restrict Walmart, Home Depot, McDonald's, Verizon, Apple because they're taking money away from mom and pop: grocery, hardware, restaurants, mobile networks, and phone manufacturers.
- rurp 2mo ago
  Are you saying that Waymo spends a similar percentage of revenue on local salaries as a labor intensive business like Home Depot or Uber? That would be surprising to me. I've seen Walmart and similar companies criticized countless times for driving local shops out of business. It has been a common attack for decades, IME. This doesn't mean the big corporate option is always inherently bad, but it's weird to me that their defenders often attack the very notion that there could be tradeoffs and downsides.

by ultimoo 2mo ago

sashank_1509 2mo ago

There is some need for local labor, but it’s an order of magnitude lower than the number of Uber drivers that get paid. I never thought of this, but I think this is a valid concern. Uber drivers will end up spending in their locality while money that goes to Waymo will be used for further investment that’s probably concentrated in the Bay Area. I will say this though, Uber it self somehow takes > 50% of the cut a driver and makes and once again spends it on engineers in California, so Uber is guilty of this same issue, but Waymo is probably worse at this than Uber. In general AI is guilty of destroying the demand for normal human labour and accumulating money into companies with highly paid engineers.

tuesdaynight 2mo ago
Someday some politician will propose a law to require companies to maintain most part of their revenue in the city where it was acquired. I know that it will not necessarily be a good thing, but it doesn't matter

darkwizard42 2mo ago

The Uber driver likely gets a different job, probably something a little less stressful and low paying (and frankly dangerous) than Uber.

superfrank 2mo ago
Usually if you're working a stressful, low paying, dangerous job it's because you don't have many other options. I'm pretty sure "just get another job" is easier said than done for most Uber drivers
- darkwizard42 2mo ago
  I think Uber is openly stressful, but is not transparently low paying or dangerous and that is why people are working it. On face value, it seems easy to earn with your existing vehicle, but most drivers dramatically overestimate earnings after depreciation, fuel, maintenance on their vehicle. Additionally, Uber puts the driver in the most dangerous situations (pickups and drops on active roadways) which aren't apparent to the driver. Driving for 6 hours a day will eventually wear on you. So, yes, I think drivers severely underestimate the risks and rewards and that is why another job is likely better (which is loosely defined here)

weatherlite 2mo ago

For sure , this is gonna kill driver jobs and/or lower their wages due to the increased competition. The upside is cheaper mobility for everyone - in general tech like this should have a deflationary effect (We're still not seeing this enough). Think robots building an entire city in months/couple of years instead of a decade, that would cheapen housing dramatically. We're obviously not there yet.

ragazzina 2mo ago
>The upside is cheaper mobility for everyone Why should Google leave money on the table? They will raise the price until it's just below what people are already paying.
- weatherlite 2mo ago
  Not an expert but in general that's usually not how tech works. It generally gets commodified and cheaper : TVs, mobile phones, computers etc etc. They're either becoming cheaper or you get a way better product for the same price (think of today's TVs that make the 80s tvs look like something from the middle ages). Yes Google in the initial decade will possibly have a big head start but in the end Tesla and a bunch of Chinese names will also run robo taxis in the U.S. So my take: efficiency and competition should bring prices down in a non broken economy.
  - ragazzina 2mo ago
    >not how tech works. It generally gets commodified and cheaper: TVs Hardware gets commodified and cheaper, not services usually. Do you pay less for cable tv now compared to 20 years ago?
    - weatherlite 2mo ago
      Its complex. Cell phone plans became way cheaper in my country than 20 years ago, they used to be shockingly expensive. People old enough will remember SMS weren't cheap and a single minute of call was shockingly expensive. I'd same similar thing happened with the internet, you can now get a basic plan for cheaper than 20 years ago. Is it as cheap as it should be? Probably not. It's interesting this hasn't happened with cable I somewhat agree with you there. However you have alternatives that are just as good like Netflix and cost 20 bucks or less if you can live with ads.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

xnx 2mo ago

This is a clever talking point from Uber that doesn't get the same attention for any other nationwide company. Restrict Walmart, Home Depot, McDonald's, Verizon, Apple because they're taking money away from mom and pop: grocery, hardware, restaurants, mobile networks, and phone manufacturers.

rurp 2mo ago
Are you saying that Waymo spends a similar percentage of revenue on local salaries as a labor intensive business like Home Depot or Uber? That would be surprising to me. I've seen Walmart and similar companies criticized countless times for driving local shops out of business. It has been a common attack for decades, IME. This doesn't mean the big corporate option is always inherently bad, but it's weird to me that their defenders often attack the very notion that there could be tradeoffs and downsides.