Slashdot Mirror
'We're Just Rentals': Uber Drivers Ask Where They Fit In a Self-Driving Future (theguardian.com)
Bloomberg reported on Thursday about Uber's plan to bring its first fleet of self-driving cars to Pittsburgh as soon as this month, a move that has since been confirmed by the cab-hailing company. Amid the announcement, Uber drivers are disappointed at Uber, wondering what the future of the company lies for them. The Guardian reports:"Wo-o-o-o-w," 60-year old Uber driver Cynthia Ingram said. "We all knew it was coming. I just didn't expect it this soon." For Ingram, autonomous Ubers are an unwelcome threat to her livelihood. "I kind of figured it would be a couple more years down the line before it was really implemented and I'll be retired by then," she said. A paralegal with 30 years experience, Ingram began driving for Uber and Lyft in June 2015 when she lost her job. She said that she loves driving for Uber, though she has struggled to make ends meet. Rob Judge, 41, was also concerned with the announcement. "It feels like we're just rentals. We're kind of like placeholders until the technology comes out." A longtime customer service representative, Judge began driving for Uber three months ago to make money while he looks for other work. "For me personally, this isn't a long term stop," he added. "But for a lot of other people that I've connected with, this is their only means."
Hurry up and die.
"It feels like we're just rentals. We're kind of like placeholders until the technology comes out."
Aren't we all.
More minorities will be put out of jobs from this than whites. When white people ask for a pay increase, businesses negotiate through collective bargaining. When minorities ask for more money, businesses threaten to replace them with robots. They say it's to keep prices down, but there's really some racism going on here.
Hmm, would the lawsuit by a bunch of Uber drivers (in CA and MA) have had any effect on this decision? After all, self-driving cars would have to be pretty expensive to be more expensive than three-quarters of a billion dollars in legal bills and such....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I thought "The Expendables" was a pair of bad hero comedies, but it seems the name applies to all of humanity now.
We're all Expendable at least in the eyes of Commerce. Workers? Who needs those?! So expensive and unreliable!
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
It's about time people realized cab drivers are going to be out of work when self driving cars arrive. With more and more people leasing new cars instead of buying, I think in the large urban centers, we will see not only the replacement of human taxi operators but also a shift from leasing cars to leasing rides from a large fleet. It just makes the most sense logistically.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
I dont think this car economy model constructors are aiming for will ever work.
They want to help you subsidize your own car payments by allowing you to "rent" your car through auto-driving capabilities.
But looking at how people disrespect other people propriety, there's no way in hell any sane person would allow total strangers to use their cars, unsupervised.
You'' go back to your car with mud on the seats, semen on the carpet, trash and dead hookers in the trunk.
My car is not your public transport. Dont try to find reasons and means to rise car prices under the pretence that it pays for itself.
Interacting taxi and rideshare drivers is my least favorite part of the "experience." I'm not being sarcastic when I write I can wait for the human strangers to be removed from the process.
There will never be anything like "self driving cars". What a bunch of crap. Why do people keep going on and on about autonomous cars? It isn't going to happen. Let me guess: these "self driving cars" will have drivers in them.
None of these zenbatsu care about you. You're just masterless samurai Ronin to them.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
That Uber is marginal here. Self driving trucks are really going to take a toll. Faster, cheaper and so on. Still need electricians, plumbers, welders, and so on though.
why dont you want to be friends with him
https://youtu.be/7Pq-S557XQU
The idea that technology will find new things for everyone to do is insane...
We will need a new economic model...
Sure, Uber could invest in fleets of self-driving cars (which I, actually, doubt will be a significant presence on the roads for a while yet), but doesn't that run against the whole point of Uber and Lyft? That being crowdsourcing ride sharing (and, not so coincidentally, capital costs)? That would seem to turn Uber into just another taxi company, albeit one with a cool mobile app. I do think self-driving cars are a cool concept, especially for taxis, but think there will have to be some serious breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (i.e., it will have to be actualized, as opposed to being essentially Wikipedia with fast lookup and cross-referencing) before this sort of thing is viable on a large scale.
TANSTAAFL
Isn't "rental" literally what they are? I mean, with a service, but still... a short-term on-demand paid-for one. i.e. "rental".
And anyway, I'm not going to feel bad for technology replacing Uber drivers when Uber itself was a "disruptive" technology to replace taxi cabs. I'm glad for innovation that creates real improvements, and I empathize with people who may lose jobs over it... but this seems a bit of a hypocritical sort of wine from a "high-tech" business model which _very recently_ did exactly the same displacement of an older less-techy business model.
Actively help the tech along, selling out our brethren by the thousands or millions so that we can get another paycheck, but without even any stake or ownership in the finished technology.
Those plebs are the ones to be concerned about, because they are the true sycophant slaves toiling for their master's ambitions with no sense of its effect on the world around them.
You could always do food delivery. I was out of work for a while and my car is too old and has too few doors to work for Uber. However I signed up with Order Ahead (a competitor of Doordash) and did food delivery. It was enough to pay the bills and quite enjoyable. I brought my laptop with me and did some online courses during downtime, which I still got paid for since they pay an hourly rate plus per-mile delivery fees and tips.
I'd say it'll be a while before food delivery gets completely automated. Some sort of autonomous Segway device or drone might come to the restaurant to pick up the food? It's a longer way off than driverless taxis.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I don't think people get it. We are ALL just placeholders until the technology is ready. Anyone been to a McDonald's or Wendy's lately where the cashiers are just touch screens? Yes. A computer will be able to do YOUR job some day too.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Automating every last job is the correct path to a future where nobody has to work and we can just exist as humans, bettering ourselves. Ideal society if you ask me. Working for masters is overrated.
"It feels like we're just rentals. We're kind of like placeholders until the technology comes out."
That's because that's exactly what they are. Nobody wanted to talk about regulation or establishing fair laws, or even the fact that 'the sharing economy' was a sham. Kinda too late to start complaining now.
>Hurry up and die.
Humans still have value. Hasn't anyone ever told you that you could have a bright future in biofuel?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Leftist newspaper cries crocodile tears for the future fate of some people. Same people which helped destroy the livelihood of some taxi drivers, another reason for another round of crocodile tears for the leftist Guardian.
Guardian doesn't give a shit about Uber drivers. Guardian simply plays the same leftist shit as usual: capitalism is only bad, UK is only bad, UK past is only bad, USA is only bad, USA past is only bad, economic change is only bad (except when it's associated with a heavy dose of leftist propaganda - then it's all fine, please have some more).
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
you are contributing to a bunch of little fagots project
Provide a ride that'll give the passenger liposuction on the way, and use the lard as an energy supply.
Hitch hikers ride in the trunk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This one pushes the false narrative: Ask Where They Fit In a Self-Driving Future
They don't. It is a stupid notion. You don't need robots to wipe your ass either.
It is also not investable, similar to the gamble of investing in big pharma. One lawsuit the stock dies. Your money is trapped. You are fucked.
So why is Honey Slashpot the FBI daily Uber gazette? Nobody needs to be chaperoned to work at Walmart. People like to drive, and it is a freedom to drive. Computer cars that you don't even drive.. then what? Hacked by your own GOV? Who dunnit? Which 3 letters you going to roll for this time? XYZ? US Gov. FBI US Gov. CIA US Gov. DHS (lol?) US Gov. NSA US Gov.
Fag shit on Slashdot is the ruin of Slashdot and self-exposure of the FBI's mindset. As you were.
As an Uber driver, you already fit in better at Arcade City. http://arcade.city/ https://twitter.com/arcadecity... https://www.facebook.com/Arcad...
Wouldn't get me jumping into an empty cab with no driver.
Sure some cab drivers are so vacant they may as well not be there,
but...
Go well
Doesn't this lower the barrier of entry for any competitor, even small local taxi services dispatching self-driving cars?
when a business model threatens their livelihood, your all meat for the corporate grinder.. or you can just load up on Adderall to try and match 24/7 availability when the drones are not in the shop.
When it comes down to a choice between starving in the gutter and stabbing you and stealing your iPhone, I'd say, from what I've seen of humanity, your chances are about 50-50.
That's me being an optimist and viewing the majority of mankind as being generally good most of the time.
Do we really want a whole world that looks like Brazil, but 50x worse?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
So if I understand the story correctly, Uber drivers are like Uber for workers.
We are all Uber now. The gig economy will set us all free from the horrors of prosperity.
You are welcome on my lawn.
From a Uber rider standpoint I guess it's fine to save a few bucks. But for the Uber driver contractor it's working for less than minimum wage, paying all your expenses and working long hours to even make a mediocre wage. Many fail like I did in a matter of days or weeks. Uber preys on the desperate for money and at the promise of ridiculous and unattainable incomes. Never seen any more lies from the likes of trucking companies. Uber takes 20% of the top of fares for basically making a app and running servers. Besides that they also skirt regulation cab companies have to pay and obey. It's easy to see how Uber can cut rates because it doesn't play fair. When it is forced to play fair like in Austin Tx it simply closes shop. Is this the kind of company you want doing autonomous vehicles for transporting people? This is a company who also has denied insurance claims from drivers who were obviously covered by Uber because they had a client.
Where do you fit in a self-driving future?
You don't fit, anywhere in the puzzle. I suggest you support legislature in support of a basic income, because in the future probably 75% of the workforce will be automated out of a job.
should be taking note. The vast majority of their jobs are all going to end in the next decade or two. At most they will just be a human body for another decade after that to sit in the seat, hopefully not sleeping, to be able to intervene if needed. After that we'll never see a human taxi cab, truck driver, subway, train engineer except in a few small pockets, like out in the mountains or country roads for some construction jobs, which will all be taken over fully by automation within the next 30-40 years.
Anyone driving anything; ship, boat, train, truck, cab, tractor, most heavy equipment, you name it, will all be loosing their jobs within the next 50 years in all developed nations.
Person working on behalf of startup which seeks to disrupt the taxi industry and put millions of taxi drivers worldwide out of business.... is worried about her company putting her out of business.
It's a brave new ironic world, and thank you Cynthia for helping to make the gig economy real! Feel less good about it now, do you?
When no one has a job to pay for stuff, what's your business model? Export?
http://vivoleum.com.yeslab.org...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I suspect coffee shops will be before nail/hair, which will be before plumbers and electricians. Plumbers/electricians have to do onsite stuff, and no two sites are quite the same. Automating that level of flexibility will take longer than building an auto-mixing espresso bot.
autonomous Ubers are an unwelcome threat to her livelihood
They didn't bat an eyelash when it came to screwing over the cabbies and now... where's my violin?
...because a taxi without a passenger is still occupied by a human. An unoccupied autonomous uber car could be a tempting target for all those displaced taxi/uber drivers.
I remember life before coffee shops (ca. late 80's). I don't remember it being too bad.
I bought a stretched limousine recently. Lincoln town car, black, stretched. Keeps the junior kid at my office employed full time. I'm not a 'high roller', bought this vehicle mostly as a joke - everyone loves it. The novelty has worn off now sadly, but the fun times continue regardless. Anyways, the topic of self driving cars came up while we were getting driven around. I thought about it.... A self-driving stretched limo would never be 'cool' - for something like this, you NEED a human chauffer to complete the vehicle. When the junior kid gets tired of driving my butt around, I'll need to find someone else. Maybe I could employ an ex-uber driver.
Looks like the investors and senior executives of Uber are sharing...the spoils. Those people never had any overarching "vision" other than lining their pockets.
Check the number of horses. Strength and speed tasks got replaced. Mental tasks did not.
Computers replace mental tasks.
The problem is that "fair" is a really, really bad word for making policy decisions at almost any level. It is far too nebulous and almost always results in comparing apples to oranges.
Is it fair to have the same standards for getting into college, or should you get a handicap for the "unfair" advantages of your parents' educational level, your family's income, your identification with a dominant religion or race, etc...?
It is fair to spend a hundred thousand dollars less on public medical staff serving critical needs every day so you can help small businesses move into a revitalize a community?
Is it fair to force uber drivers out of work because you have a technology that is cheaper and safer, even if some of them lose their homes and lives because of it? How many have to lose their homes before it's unfair?
Is it fair to force people not to use that technology because you want to keep those drivers employed?
Is it fair to outlaw pumping your own gas?
Is it fair for a union to prohibit you from screwing a pencil sharpener to your own desk? To your employer's desk? What if you bring your own desk to your office?
Most real decisions in life involve allocating resources unequally when people have different points of view about how they should be allocated and different sets of other resources to trade for them (whether physical or intangible). The grade-school concept of "fairness" does not provide answers to almost any decision or policy question. There is always a second-level argument about what makes something "fair," and humans are VERY good at rationalizing the opinion that supports their point of view. Arguments can almost always be structured to make "fair" whatever outcome you claim is the fair one. It's just a simple way of rationalizing our opinions about how things ought to be done.
Real lawyers write in C++
Yes, innovation is good for society at large. No, most people who read /. probably don't feel to bad when an established business is upset by a disruptive new company. Yes, change is good in the economy, as it keeps companies innovating. No it isn't good that a lot of people are going to lose their jobs.
But, this is particularly disturbing because driving a taxi is a hard problem to automate, and if this can be done, then it puts a timer on a lot of manual labor that people at the bottom of the financial ladder depend on to get by. Society in its current form cannot survive with 50% of the population perpetually impoverished and unemployed. There is a saying that a country is only ever meals away from revolution, and either we need to become a lot more generous with social entitlements, or cities will burn, and it will be France 1793 all over again.
The only real question is when? Based on social and technological change, I am guessing in no less that 20 years, but no more than 50 years.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Smart Uber drivers should see this as an advantage. It is unlikely Uber would want to purchase fleets across the world of self driving cars. It would be way to expensive. Why not just let other people buy the self driving cars as they do with regular cars now, and then let the cars join the Uber fleet when it suits them? That way they still make money from lifting people around, but they don't actually have to do any of the driving.
Coming from the exact same group of people that threw the old buggy-whip makers argument in the face of cab drivers, this is too much. Yep, times change alright: and now they've changed against you. Seriously, what did you expect from Über?. And, you know, it's not like it's been a big secret that this was the long term plan.
Dear drivers;
Thank you for funding our autonomous vehicle research. Bye now.
Yours very sincerely,
T K
Elephant in the room that the advocates of self-driving cars don't want to discuss, and won't admit is a serious risk: security. Sure, you can claim all day long that these self-driving cars and their control systems will be "uber secure". But hey, in other recent news some folks are selling software they exfiltrated from the NSA. So I'm pretty sure if someone can crack them, then someone can crack Uber.
Thing is, all it takes is one compromise to wreak carnage on an absolutely catastrophic scale.
Imagine a near future with a few million autonomous Uber vehicles deployed and active. One malicious hacker cracks into the system. His motivations don't matter. Hacker sez to the cars: "Attention all self-driving Ubers! Turn hard left now and accelerate to maximum speed." That's all it takes, man, all it takes. I hope that doesn't happen, but I fear it will. Maybe then people will understand the risks they're playing with.
Why, in an incinerator of course. Just like all those have-nots who have to work to live and have now been replaced by better, cheaper alternatives. The future IS a leisure society, but only for the worthy ones. Not for you, not for the 99% of the air breathers who are wasting the planet's resources.
Hey Uber drivers, how does it feel to be replaced by scabs? Now you know how us taxi drivers feel.
While of course what you say is true as far as it goes (money can be spent either on repairs or on new stuff), here is a way the broken window fallacy can itself be a fallacy.
If almost all the currency in a society is hoarded by the wealthiest 1% (like kept in the "Casino Economy") and the 1% control the government so it refuses to directly print more currency according to the needs of the 99%, then the economy for the 99% functions as if there were a depression due to insufficient currency in the economy of real goods and services.
The health of an economy for most people (as well as the political health of a democracy) is not just how much currency there is, or how fast it moves, but how broadly the currency is distributed. Many average economic indicators may not reflect this economic depression for the 99% due to currency unavailability -- in the same way that if Bill Gates stepped into a homeless shelter by accident, everyone in the building would on average be a millionaire.
For more on the "Casino Economy" or "Gambling Economy" of abstract finance see the section of Money as Debt II starting around here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In such a circumstance (which is close to the economy we have now), if a window breaks that a wealthy person or the government wants to fix, then some of the hoarded and speculated cash from the Casino economy may be leaked into the real economy of the 99%. This would temporarily alleviate a tiny bit of the ongoing defacto economic depression until the money is sucked back into the ever expanding Casino economy again via interest on debt or other forms of rent-seeking. Someone breaking a to-be-replaced window of a wealthy person or government in such a situation is then engaging in an indirect form of theft. WWII was another example that led to increased government spending and progressive taxation in the USA, although to great human suffering across the globe in other ways.
To be clear, breaking a window that needs to be repaired by the 99% does not have this currency redistribution effect since no additional currency will be moved from the casino economy to the real economy. Then we are just left with the fallacy in its standard form -- not the fallacy in the limiting case of concentrated hoarded wealth.
Of course, in practice, things getting broken only gives excuses for future crackdowns on "terrorists" and the diversion of what little cash is left circulating in the real economy for the 99% into new taxes for a larger security apparatus to protect the windows of the 1%, so ultimately the path of breaking windows is likely self-defeating.
Better options include alternative currencies, local exchange trading systems (LETS), an improved gift economy like via free software and shared knowledge like with Slashdot, improved local subsistence production like via 3D printing or home gardening robots like Farmbot, better democratic processes leading to better government planning, and political change towards a basic income (with the BI funded by progressive taxation and rents on resource extraction or government-granted monopolies like broadcast spectrum use). I discuss those and more options here:
http://pdfernhout.net/beyond-a...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Obviously nothing related to UBER since they will be operating their own vehicles autonomously. Why would they pay you anything when they can keep all for themselves? You are just a step in that process, you will make them money, you will fund their research and when they have the job done you will be disposed as crap. As the crap that you are now if you are working for that obnoxious company.
"Wo-o-o-o-w," 60-year old Uber driver Cynthia Ingram said. "We all knew it was coming. I just didn't expect it this soon."
She's 60 now? She'll be 70 before even a substantial number of autonomous taxis hit the street. It will certainly happen - autonomous vehicles will demolish the auto industries as well as the taxi industries, but it's not going to be overnight. The technology is still in its infancy.
I'm 66 now, and my car - probably the last car I'll ever buy - is 7 years old. I look forward to being able to summon a small autonomous vehicle to take me to the supermarket, and an hour later summon a larger vehicle to take me and my groceries home. Between that and Amazon Prime deliveries, I don't foresee a need for me to ever buy a new car again.
Uber drivers are desperate for cash. I don't begrudge the starving person who steals a loaf of bread. I begrudge the people cheering that person on.
Your ad here. Ask me how!