5 ms·

I spoke with my UberX driver about unionization the other day; it's honestly the only way forward for the drivers. Without unionizing, the prices will continue

I spoke with my UberX driver about unionization the other day; it's honestly the only way forward for the drivers. Without unionizing, the prices will continue to be cut and they will continue to lose out. Going even further, lots of people are talking about the job creation boom associated with the sharing economy. However, in the case of Uber and Lyft, that's short term. In 10-15 years, does anyone actually think people will be driving cars for Uber in San Francisco? With the way things are going, auto-driving cars will take their place. Unions could lobby the state legislature to make for auto-driving cab or ride services illegal without a driver in the car. Right now, they could make a serious case for that as a safety thing, since the technology is unproven. In 5-10 years, that won't be the case. So yes, from the driver perspective, they have to unionize. If they don't they're finished sooner or later.

vdaniuk 12y ago
In cases like this, unions would be creating negative externalities for the society, while supporting outdated technology. It is not sustainable, the cause is lost. The best way forward would be reeducation and training of professional drivers. One way to fund it would be recognizing the imminent future and creating a special tax on Uber-like businesses to channel funds toward driver training programs.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ebiester 12y ago
  So, what are they going to do? We're automating faster than we can create new jobs. In the long run, we'll figure something out. In the long run, however, we'll all be dead.
jwr 12y ago
In the long term, I would rather start thinking about whether we really want to keep driver-type jobs around. I think people have to start to accept that certain types of mindless jobs will be gone sooner or later, and that (as hard as it might seem) everyone needs to educate themselves and work towards jobs that cannot be automated.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  This is the sort of thing you generally hear from people who assume their job is not among those that can be automated. Many of those people are going to be unpleasantly surprised.
  - vdaniuk 12y ago
    And that changes exactly what? Yes, most people whose jobs will be automated think they are safe. However, it is very likely that automation of jobs is a Nash equilibrium outcome and fighting against it without global consensus is useless. We should channel our efforts to other ventures that would provide food, housing and health security for those losing their jobs due to automation.
    - Ygg2 12y ago
      That was grandparent's point. As long as software keeps automating tasks, there are very few jobs that are safe and most of them are in developing or maintaining software that automates the jobs. Software can automate a really huge swath of jobs. From research (performing experiments) to art to physical checkup, it's a list that keeps growing. While I essentially agree that such programs should lead to extremely high taxes followed by redistribution of tax money to people, right now it's not the model most western countries are moving towards.
  - ewzimm 12y ago
    On the contrary, I think anyone who is thinking seriously about automation acknowledges that their job is on the list, especially for a lot of software work like debugging, updating libraries, refactoring code, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. Automation means more free time to do things people actually enjoy, but only if we properly distribute the benefits. The challenge is not to prevent automation of any kind of work but rather to ensure that people are fairly compensated for that automation and all the benefits don't go to the people at the top.
    - abakker 12y ago
tolmasky 12y ago
That sounds pretty ethically terrifying. Car related death and injury is something we put up with today because it is a "necessity" for the way we run our society. With the advent of driverless cars, politically keeping humans in the driving seat will mean keeping around these unneeded deaths solely for the sake of a special interest group. Even if they aren't driving but merely sitting there (when the argument is purely job based and not safety based), the result would be that the cost of running a driverless car will be similar to a car with a driver, thus making the transition less economically obvious and slower, in turn slowing down the reduction of accidents.
- zanny 12y ago
  And it is a near-infinite performance multiplier. Every driverless car is very useful work being done without anyone having to do work, besides maintain the thing. And Tesla is leading the way with repair facilities that are almost completely automated themselves, and when you have autonomous vehicles capable of driving around other defective goods to automated factories for repair, it becomes even more profound. Every worker replaced by a robot is tremendous productivity gains for the economy. Or, moreso, for their boss. The sooner we accept that many people will soon be unemployable, and that is a good thing, the sooner we can move on with our society and not need to try forming unions to prevent progress out of fear of jobs that have no reason to exist and thus are a drain on everything.
  - zzzeek 12y ago
    you have to solve the "unemployable people" problem first, before you take away unions. Unions at the very least serve to slow the process of worker replacement so that technological changes don't thrust large masses at once into instant poverty, which has its own negative effects on the economy.
    - darkmighty 12y ago
      I don't think giving people useless jobs is superior to letting more efficient tech replace them. Instead of just wasting a potential efficiency gain, the government could use a part of the gains to either give the resources to workers directly or spend on training and education. Anyway, there are plently of useful things you could do with workers besides just wasting the efficiency gain.
waylandsmithers 12y ago
> Going even further, lots of people are talking about the job creation boom associated with the sharing economy. Is there any evidence of this? My assumption was that people are using Uber in situations where they otherwise would have called a regular taxi.
- mateo411 12y ago
  I think the demand for taxi services has gone up since Uber entered the marketplace. Uber made it easier to call a cab and see when the cab would show up. Since the product was easier and better, more people wanted to use it. I don't have any hard data to support my claim. I can provide some anecdata about waiting for a Yellow Cab in SF in the mid 2000s. Sometimes they would arrive and other times they wouldn't.
tehabe 12y ago
I actually think, that auto-driving cabs would be bad for Uber's business model. There model is to shift all risks and hard assets (car) to contractors. With auto-driven cab the contractors could run a lot of cars or even for several companies or Uber had to run them on their own. With the necessity to carry the risks and all the costs. But I agree, without a union the drivers won't get anything done. I think also the state should see those drivers as what they are, Uber employees. It shouldn't matter what Uber calls them. If someone works full time for one company they are employees of that company.

vdaniuk 12y ago

In cases like this, unions would be creating negative externalities for the society, while supporting outdated technology. It is not sustainable, the cause is lost. The best way forward would be reeducation and training of professional drivers. One way to fund it would be recognizing the imminent future and creating a special tax on Uber-like businesses to channel funds toward driver training programs.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ebiester 12y ago
So, what are they going to do? We're automating faster than we can create new jobs. In the long run, we'll figure something out. In the long run, however, we'll all be dead.

jwr 12y ago

In the long term, I would rather start thinking about whether we really want to keep driver-type jobs around. I think people have to start to accept that certain types of mindless jobs will be gone sooner or later, and that (as hard as it might seem) everyone needs to educate themselves and work towards jobs that cannot be automated.

smacktoward 12y ago
This is the sort of thing you generally hear from people who assume their job is not among those that can be automated. Many of those people are going to be unpleasantly surprised.
- vdaniuk 12y ago
  And that changes exactly what? Yes, most people whose jobs will be automated think they are safe. However, it is very likely that automation of jobs is a Nash equilibrium outcome and fighting against it without global consensus is useless. We should channel our efforts to other ventures that would provide food, housing and health security for those losing their jobs due to automation.
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    That was grandparent's point. As long as software keeps automating tasks, there are very few jobs that are safe and most of them are in developing or maintaining software that automates the jobs. Software can automate a really huge swath of jobs. From research (performing experiments) to art to physical checkup, it's a list that keeps growing. While I essentially agree that such programs should lead to extremely high taxes followed by redistribution of tax money to people, right now it's not the model most western countries are moving towards.
- ewzimm 12y ago
  On the contrary, I think anyone who is thinking seriously about automation acknowledges that their job is on the list, especially for a lot of software work like debugging, updating libraries, refactoring code, etc. There's nothing wrong with that. Automation means more free time to do things people actually enjoy, but only if we properly distribute the benefits. The challenge is not to prevent automation of any kind of work but rather to ensure that people are fairly compensated for that automation and all the benefits don't go to the people at the top.
  - abakker 12y ago

tolmasky 12y ago

That sounds pretty ethically terrifying. Car related death and injury is something we put up with today because it is a "necessity" for the way we run our society. With the advent of driverless cars, politically keeping humans in the driving seat will mean keeping around these unneeded deaths solely for the sake of a special interest group. Even if they aren't driving but merely sitting there (when the argument is purely job based and not safety based), the result would be that the cost of running a driverless car will be similar to a car with a driver, thus making the transition less economically obvious and slower, in turn slowing down the reduction of accidents.

zanny 12y ago
And it is a near-infinite performance multiplier. Every driverless car is very useful work being done without anyone having to do work, besides maintain the thing. And Tesla is leading the way with repair facilities that are almost completely automated themselves, and when you have autonomous vehicles capable of driving around other defective goods to automated factories for repair, it becomes even more profound. Every worker replaced by a robot is tremendous productivity gains for the economy. Or, moreso, for their boss. The sooner we accept that many people will soon be unemployable, and that is a good thing, the sooner we can move on with our society and not need to try forming unions to prevent progress out of fear of jobs that have no reason to exist and thus are a drain on everything.
- zzzeek 12y ago
  you have to solve the "unemployable people" problem first, before you take away unions. Unions at the very least serve to slow the process of worker replacement so that technological changes don't thrust large masses at once into instant poverty, which has its own negative effects on the economy.
  - darkmighty 12y ago
    I don't think giving people useless jobs is superior to letting more efficient tech replace them. Instead of just wasting a potential efficiency gain, the government could use a part of the gains to either give the resources to workers directly or spend on training and education. Anyway, there are plently of useful things you could do with workers besides just wasting the efficiency gain.

waylandsmithers 12y ago

> Going even further, lots of people are talking about the job creation boom associated with the sharing economy. Is there any evidence of this? My assumption was that people are using Uber in situations where they otherwise would have called a regular taxi.

mateo411 12y ago
I think the demand for taxi services has gone up since Uber entered the marketplace. Uber made it easier to call a cab and see when the cab would show up. Since the product was easier and better, more people wanted to use it. I don't have any hard data to support my claim. I can provide some anecdata about waiting for a Yellow Cab in SF in the mid 2000s. Sometimes they would arrive and other times they wouldn't.

tehabe 12y ago

I actually think, that auto-driving cabs would be bad for Uber's business model. There model is to shift all risks and hard assets (car) to contractors. With auto-driven cab the contractors could run a lot of cars or even for several companies or Uber had to run them on their own. With the necessity to carry the risks and all the costs. But I agree, without a union the drivers won't get anything done. I think also the state should see those drivers as what they are, Uber employees. It shouldn't matter what Uber calls them. If someone works full time for one company they are employees of that company.