4 ms·

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people

by rtpg 12y ago

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

res0nat0r 12y ago
If this was a different company in HN people would be clamoring that everyone else needs to get with the times and that this is just our favorite buzzword "disruption" at work. It doesn't apply to uber now, I guess just since they've crossed the invisible HN "us vs. them" threshold now that they have a lot of money.
Hytosys 12y ago
I understand your point but there's a much less stifling middle ground. Unions can be grand things until a line is crossed. Higher wages for drivers? Sure. Safety and insurance? Absolutely. Prolonging the adaptation of a technology that will replace the dangerous alternative (humans operating cars)? Please, no: this job market is now dead for drivers. It's time to move on. Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriages in consideration of the unemployed buggy drivers?
- rtpg 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same company? Uber is not replacing taxi drivers with robots, it's replacing taxi drivers with taxi drivers. It's a dispatch service with a nice payment integration system. No matter how well it is done, there is no quantum leap to it.
  - Hytosys 12y ago
    Did you miss the comment I originally responded to? > The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars
marvin 12y ago
This leads to the big philosophical question that has been relevant for some time. If we have the choice, which society is preferrable: (1) Most services automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn money are supported by taxing those who do (2) technological progress is actively hindered in order to ensure that everyone has the skills to hold a job that pays enough to live on, or (3) most services are automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn enough to live are left to live in poverty (or starve) And as technologists, which world should we push for? Ethics is not given nearly enough consideration among technologists, and this is one prime example.
- Hytosys 12y ago
  I don't know that it is the popular opinion in my country (USA) but I'd choose to live in society (1). I grew up being convinced that a successful person is one who "earns" one's keep, but it's becoming clear that by turning our backs to those in poverty, we make the world a much worse place than if instead we normalized the class bracket to keep the poorest at an approximate income value of ~$30k/yr. Maybe I should just move to Denmark.
  - patcon 12y ago
    Or build/support the things that expose the cracks in the prevailing political/social wisdom :) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about. Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them. Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you: 1) Continue to learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life. 2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or 3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make) I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.
alextgordon 12y ago
If the lower classes are having to work three jobs, it's because of the scarcity of housing, not self-driving cars. Most poor people's biggest monthly expense is rent. An oversupply of housing would go a long way towards helping them. Of course, the landowning classes will never allow this. We haven't really moved on since the middle ages.
- pkinsky 12y ago
  In the US at least: meanwhile, China overbuilds housing to the point where ghost cities (not just towns, cities) are scattered across the country.
TheHypnotist 12y ago
Yeah but in this case no one who works for Uber is forced to actually do any work. This is an ad hoc, "I feel like making a few extra bones" type deal where they provide an affordable and convenient service to the populace. To say they are being exploited is wildly dramatic.

by rtpg 12y ago

your "progress of technology" is based off of the exploitation of the lower class. I'd much rather our resources be allocated in a way that doesn't force people to work 3 jobs.

res0nat0r 12y ago

If this was a different company in HN people would be clamoring that everyone else needs to get with the times and that this is just our favorite buzzword "disruption" at work. It doesn't apply to uber now, I guess just since they've crossed the invisible HN "us vs. them" threshold now that they have a lot of money.

Hytosys 12y ago

I understand your point but there's a much less stifling middle ground. Unions can be grand things until a line is crossed. Higher wages for drivers? Sure. Safety and insurance? Absolutely. Prolonging the adaptation of a technology that will replace the dangerous alternative (humans operating cars)? Please, no: this job market is now dead for drivers. It's time to move on. Or should we go back to horse-drawn carriages in consideration of the unemployed buggy drivers?

rtpg 12y ago
I'm sorry, but are we talking about the same company? Uber is not replacing taxi drivers with robots, it's replacing taxi drivers with taxi drivers. It's a dispatch service with a nice payment integration system. No matter how well it is done, there is no quantum leap to it.
- Hytosys 12y ago
  Did you miss the comment I originally responded to? > The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars

marvin 12y ago

This leads to the big philosophical question that has been relevant for some time. If we have the choice, which society is preferrable: (1) Most services automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn money are supported by taxing those who do (2) technological progress is actively hindered in order to ensure that everyone has the skills to hold a job that pays enough to live on, or (3) most services are automated away, and those who don't have the skills or abilities to earn enough to live are left to live in poverty (or starve) And as technologists, which world should we push for? Ethics is not given nearly enough consideration among technologists, and this is one prime example.

Hytosys 12y ago
I don't know that it is the popular opinion in my country (USA) but I'd choose to live in society (1). I grew up being convinced that a successful person is one who "earns" one's keep, but it's becoming clear that by turning our backs to those in poverty, we make the world a much worse place than if instead we normalized the class bracket to keep the poorest at an approximate income value of ~$30k/yr. Maybe I should just move to Denmark.
- patcon 12y ago
  Or build/support the things that expose the cracks in the prevailing political/social wisdom :) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
DanielBMarkham 12y ago
I believe you are grouping "those who don't have the skills or abilities" as one unit. Seems like a very large container to be making decisions about. Let's exclude those who cannot learn enough to function in society. If anybody wants these people to starve, I haven't met them. Suppose you graduate from college with a degree in repairing fax machines. Fax machines are quickly disappearing. Should you: 1) Continue to learn about fax machines while the rest of society pays for your food, shelter, and health care. After all, it's not for us to judge what you do with your life. 2) Expect fax machines to be mandated by law so that you and the other fax machine experts can have a job, or 3) Expect things to change. Try to match your own skills and desires with whatever most people want. That is, try to fit yourself into the society and world you find yourself in and not expect the world to change for you. (Whether or not the rest of us support you during this time is irrelevant, except in terms of whether it helps or hinders the change you need to make) I believe this is the same set of alternatives you have offered, only looking at it from the individual level instead of as some hypothetical external observer.

alextgordon 12y ago

If the lower classes are having to work three jobs, it's because of the scarcity of housing, not self-driving cars. Most poor people's biggest monthly expense is rent. An oversupply of housing would go a long way towards helping them. Of course, the landowning classes will never allow this. We haven't really moved on since the middle ages.

pkinsky 12y ago
In the US at least: meanwhile, China overbuilds housing to the point where ghost cities (not just towns, cities) are scattered across the country.

TheHypnotist 12y ago

Yeah but in this case no one who works for Uber is forced to actually do any work. This is an ad hoc, "I feel like making a few extra bones" type deal where they provide an affordable and convenient service to the populace. To say they are being exploited is wildly dramatic.