5 ms·
>Uber plans to do away with human cab drivers. >It would be easy for a non-plutocratic government to prohibit this, and that's what every country ought to do,
by johnloeber 12y ago
>Uber plans to do away with human cab drivers.
>It would be easy for a non-plutocratic government to prohibit this, and that's what every country ought to do, unless/until every person gets an adequate basic income so people don't need to be employed.
So what? This is the way of technology: obsolete work becomes automated. Extending RMS' argument to its logical conclusion means reinstating many forms of manual labor (that are now done by machines) in effort to reduce unemployment. Do you want to plow your land with your bare hands? No! Do you want to drive taxis? No!
There's a special point regarding driving taxis: it's one of the most dangerous jobs currently available. Moreover, the taxi industry is infamously exploitative of drivers, such that the competition from Uber/Lyft is actually raising taxi drivers' wages in the interim.[0]
I did not expect the logical conclusion of RMS' argument to be ludditism. I find this surprising.
> Uber is an unregulated near-monopoly, so it can cut rates for drivers arbitrarily.
I think this is an unrealistic long-term view. The rideshare market has low barriers to entry and a high potential for competition, such that I expect to eventually see this market fragmented among many isomorphic companies (Lyft, Uber, SideCar, etc.), perhaps more so on a local than on a global level. I've laid out my thoughts on the issue in an essay.[1]
[0] http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/how-lyft-and-uber-will-raise-taxi-drivers-incomes-not-lower-them/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/12/how-lyft-...
[1] http://johnloeber.com/w/uber.pdf http://johnloeber.com/w/uber.pdf
- ThomPete 12y ago"So what?" The way of technology is to increasingly render people obsolete. This is great for some people for most its a threat to their ability to make a living. The logical conclusion is not what you state but one conclusion his other is basic income and then you can automate away all you want. There is an unfortunate tendency to think about technology replacing jobs as temporary until the workforce re-adjust yet the increasing reality is structural unemployment not just temporary. This for instance is worrying http://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/destroying.jobs_.chart1x910_0.jpg http://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/d... The luddite fallacy is well known by many yet there are an increasingly worrying trend that indicates that the fallacy is a fallacy itself. The consequence is that as technology does what technology do, it will leave an increasingly larger and larger group of people unable to find new jobs. The real competitors arent china, its automation and people really dont give it enough credit.
- johnloeber 12y ago> There is an unfortunate tendency to think about technology replacing jobs as temporary until the workforce re-adjust yet the increasing reality is structural unemployment not just temporary. Yeah, I know. The thing you're forgetting is that unemployment denotes a percentage of the eligible workforce, which, in itself, is only a fraction of the total population. Before the industrial revolution, literally EVERYONE, save for infants and toddlers, had some sort of employment -- some daily task to assist their making ends meet. The long-term trend is extremely obviously one of monotonic decline of the number of jobs available per capita. I'm totally aware that the consequence of technology replacing jobs is structural unemployment. Yes, over time, there will be more unemployment. It is likely that we will adapt for this by changing the definition of the eligible workforce, and by supplying further social aid (e.g. basic income) to those who are not in the workforce. However, the problem with your argument is that you are putting the cart before the horse: you want basic income before you remove jobs. Instituting basic income while people still have jobs is politically well-nigh impossible. There actually must be a felt need for basic income, not just "once y'all have basic income we can start automating away your jobs". Would you have said, on the cusp of the industrial revolution, that nations should hold out on the technological progress until everyone is assured a new job and a decent quality of life? Maybe, but I think that's a bit idealistic. Innovation -- like all forms of change -- can be a bit rough as it sweeps through.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoHonestly, I think it's useful to be talking about basic income right now so that when the time arrives it's not a totally alien idea. It would also be useful to have some small-scale prototypes running well in advance to help work out wrinkles.
- ThomPete 12y agoThe jobs are already being removed right now and wont come back. THAT is my argument.
- minthd 12y agoI believe uber/lyft could be a monopoly because: 1. The benefits of scale -> lower cost insurance/gas/car/services for drivers. 2. The benefit of having more customers -> less time for driver to get to customer, i.e. more money.Also when shared rides become possible(2-3 or more passenger sharing a car) , more customers you can arrange them to shorter routes(which means more people willing to share) , which also means less cost. 3. Lyft is trying to make the trip a social experience by matching you with people you'd like. Data for better matching could be an advantage.