Hacker News Reader

Comment by the8472 | Hacker News Reader

> These trucks can and will put people out of work.

You're saying that as if it were a bad thing.

It's still a much more serious issue than insurance, especially considering that truck driver is the most common job in many US states.

There are definitely a lot of drivers, but the numbers that led to that claim are a little misleading [1].

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-mo...

It's a good thing when people are put out of work because of "efficiency"

It's neither good nor bad. It's necessary. The benefits of autonomous vehicles will far outway any short term negative effects.

In no way is the development of efficiency necessary. This is a progressive myth.

How so? Earths resources are finite. Allocating the scarce resources as efficiently as possibly is key to thrive and survive.

You are under the assumption that 'efficiency' means resource efficiency. That is untrue. Exhibit A is how convoluted our current system is with our non-renewables. Replacing people with machines won't fix that.

Efficiency is celebrating the fact that you can drop your expensive annual costs and the liability of employing humans to conduct your business. People are expensive and demand things like rights and benefits. Machines can be had with a purchase/lease and maintenance costs.

Machines won't negotiate or get a lawyer. That's efficiency.

Meanwhile, we'll strip the earth to build these machines in the name of efficiency while more of the population is made useless and left to rot by an economy that functions without them.

That's an interesting narrative. It is however historically inaccurate. All throughout human history we have replaced tedious, dangerous and repetitive tasks through means other than human labor. Increased efficiency (let's set aside the definition for the moment) has only helped us.

Specifically why is this time different?

Truck driving is one of the few remaining jobs in most states where the local economy has failed its population.

It was the most common occupancy in 29 states in 2014. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-...

Who is the us "efficiency" has helped? At the end of the day, do I benefit from the fact that Company X's truck no longer needs a driver?

Does that benefit really outweigh ruining the livelihoods of millions of people, whose family now can't pay taxes and lost their ability to see doctors or to maintain a roof over their heads?

When do we get to reap the benefits of this automation?

There is a lot of money being made by letting people go and letting the tax payer pay for the societal damage.

Will those millions of drivers be transferred to a new department within the company? Will they get a severance check from the profits of this automation? Or will unemployment and lack of medical care shave 20+ years off their lives so a shipping company can save a dime that society gets to pay for?

it is necessary to capitalism.

Capitalism drives the development of increased efficiency, you cannot have capitalism without that drive, as it creates competitive advantages.

And since when do we have a duty to capitalism? Its responsible for a lot of the pain in the world u see no reason to exacerbate this.

Specifically what pain has it caused? What's a superior alternative which would solve the pain you've mentioned?

"Pain" being, say, slavery, and "solution" being to concurrent introduction of better welfare.

True free market capitalism is the polar opposite of slavery. The only transactions which are allowed are ones in which both parties have consensually agreed to the set terms.

Welfare isn't effective I agree. What do you think about a NIT?

Capitalism does not have a concept of consensual transactions, only transactions. Exploitation of the slave class is something multiple empires have grown out of.

Whenever people CAN exploit (in the name of capitalism, or racial superiority, or any other equally sociopathic concept) they will. Why are we working hard to put our neighbors out of the job in the name of some ideology? It seems a lot like you literally care more about the efficiency of the market than you do giving people a form of sustenance (or income they can barter for sustenance).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com