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.
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.
Reminds of the debates over the "Star Trek" replicator economy. Problem is, "who owns the replicator'. If it's you, you're good to go. If, however, someone else controls it and what it produces and wants you to pay for the results... then you're screwed.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Their definition of fair is that they get what they want. Their definition of justice is that the law sides with them. Etc.......
The other 997 people do something else entirely, or work at some new company at some *new* site as their operators/techs/engineers. That's just "economic growth".
But the new site will just hire 3 and have a bunch of robots instead. And 994 still need to eat. This is the problem a lot of people seem to have trouble grasping. In 20/30 years we're not going to have specialized robots that weld a steel car frame and every time you want to change what it welds you need to pay a CAD engineer and automation tech for a couple of days of work for the new car frame layout. Instead there are going to be general purpose AIs and robots that will be able to adapt to a number of tasks with minimal reprogramming. Companies won't be hiring new workers, they'll be buying new machines, paying to have them set up once and then that's it. Low skill jobs the world over are particularly vulnerable this time around. There are legions of people working nonstop to automate every aspect of the working world and things like a burger joint are the perfect starting point because there will be so many buyers for that equipment once it works sufficiently well.