Slashdot Mirror
It's Not Technology That's Disrupting Our Jobs (nytimes.com)
The history of labor shows that technology does not usually drive social change, argues Louis Hyman, director of the Institute for Workplace Studies at the ILR School at Cornell. On the contrary, social change is typically driven by decisions we make about how to organize our world. Only later does technology swoop in, accelerating and consolidating those changes. From a report: This insight is crucial for anyone concerned about the insecurity and other shortcomings of the gig economy. For it reminds us that far from being an unavoidable consequence of technological progress, the nature of work always remains a matter of social choice. It is not a result of an algorithm; it is a collection of decisions by corporations and policymakers. Consider the Industrial Revolution. Well before it took place, in the 19th century, another revolution in work occurred in the 18th century, which historians call the "industrious revolution." Before this revolution, people worked where they lived, perhaps at a farm or a shop. The manufacturing of textiles, for example, relied on networks of independent farmers who spun fibers and wove cloth. They worked on their own; they were not employees.
In the industrious revolution, however, manufacturers gathered workers under one roof, where the labor could be divided and supervised. For the first time on a large scale, home life and work life were separated. People no longer controlled how they worked, and they received a wage instead of sharing directly in the profits of their efforts. This was a necessary precondition for the Industrial Revolution. While factory technology would consolidate this development, the creation of factory technology was possible only because people's relationship to work had already changed. A power loom would have served no purpose for networks of farmers making cloth at home. The same goes for today's digital revolution.
In the industrious revolution, however, manufacturers gathered workers under one roof, where the labor could be divided and supervised. For the first time on a large scale, home life and work life were separated. People no longer controlled how they worked, and they received a wage instead of sharing directly in the profits of their efforts. This was a necessary precondition for the Industrial Revolution. While factory technology would consolidate this development, the creation of factory technology was possible only because people's relationship to work had already changed. A power loom would have served no purpose for networks of farmers making cloth at home. The same goes for today's digital revolution.
The Industrial Revolution didn't start in the 19th century, it started in the 18th century.
This isn't a real story. It is a story about an academic who selected some niche terminology to make normal stuff sound like something new. But a new phrasing is something new in the present, not something newly discovered about the past.
So, it's not the technology, but the people that no longer need to hire people that are 'at fault'... lovely. Thanks for that insight!
The whole point isn't who to blame. It's the fact that technology is exposing a deep, deep flaw in the structure of our society.
If folks don't need to use other people to make money and own virtually everything, the economy itself is useless for any meaningful society.
And if technology makes it so that anyone that gets ahead can almost automatically build to the point where they break the idea of a meaningful economy.. then basing that society or economy on people being paid for things that can be automated is a losing move in the larger game.
If society at large seeks to actually serve to expand human experience beyond just the needs of the ultra-rich, then it likely should seek to use that same technology to get people to legitimately help other people, rather than just have the rich monetize more aspects of their lives.
The whole idea of corporations is kind of a new idea historically - we can invent other ideas, with more forethought than the way courtrooms defined the things we have running the world right now.
But we do have to understand why technology will end the good things about our current economy, beyond just finding folks to blame.
Ryan Fenton
This is an example of learning too much from history. Pick one or two examples that fit nicely into a theory, declare it a law or principle, and then use it to judge or predict other events. Other events may or may not fit the pattern, so it's still a crap shoot whether you can use this to predict or understand anything else.
Uber was enabled by technology, not by some sort of social pattern.
More like the 'theory' of temp work rather than fact because the technology wasn't there to economically support it.
Um, yes.
Generally, technology can erase entire industries.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Uber was enabled by a pattern of companies getting away with skirting regulation, calling it "disruptive" tech and pretending they aren't really just taxicabs. That's a social pattern, the tech just enabled the app. Don't be stupid.
Talk about putting the cart before the horse... You might as well say that computers had no REAL effect on how business is done and how people work, too. No, computers were invented because the world decided it needed them beforehand, right? I'm sure it's not because they were developed initially for other purposes, then later retrofitted to meet more needs because the massive potential of automated computing was recognized... I mean, who's Alan Turing, right? 200 years ago, I'm sure people were sitting on big cotton bails saying "Man, I wish someone would hurry up and invent the cotton gin, I wanna work in a factory."
Show of hands: Who here would switch "his job" for trying to achieve his dreams ... or just dreaming on a beach ... in a heartbeat?
Yeah... thought so.
But we believe that can't be, because to eat, we have to work. We have to give something, to get something.
True. That's only fair.
The question, is how much?
Because when you compare the actual amount of real aka value-adding work ... and the amount that is so automated that sometimes the occasional maintenance by barely over one person keeps up as much as a massive factory ... versus the amount we have to work, to pay for what is mostly just mere profit ... then everybody of us should be able to live a life like right now, while working merely a hand full of hours a month ... or work like right now, and live in luxury.
What is the key problem of this whole thing, is and always was, that it is apparently legal, to steal money and leech off of people that slave away for one, if one just makes sure every theft or robbery includes a small amount of legitimate exchange of equal values. (The actually earned amount.)
Of course we're already one step further, as it is apparently already enough, if it is just a mere copy of the result of said valuable work. As in the example of data/media. But strangely not OK, if that result is money. Maybe because it's too obvious a crime.
And it's definitely enough, if you don't even use your own work! Just call yourself a bank or stock trader, use the work of others, to get a third party to give you even more in return, maybe pay back the others, and keep the delta. Oh, I forgot, if you are a bank, you can just make up $92 for every $8 that you issue to your victims!
The strange part is, how the average person out there is not only seemingly unaware of this, but actively rejecting it. ... Maybe because his whole "work life" would be a lie otherwise, and he could not handle having been such an "idiot" all his life.
Why though? Nobody is an "idiot", for growing into a certain mindset / social conditioning / brainwashing. The idiocy is realizing one could massively improve one's life, and not doing it.
What an idiot
Yeah, because no companies got away with skirting regulations until 2010. It is a totally new thing.
That was their business model and why they succeeded where others were driven out of business by the taxi cartels and corrupt local governments. But that’s not a broad social phenomenon.
The technology enabled the service. Defeating corruption kept it from being destroyed by rent seekers.
What social phenomenon preceded Uber that enabled it? Unemployment? If that's the answer, then this pattern predicts everything and thereby predicts nothing.
Can we please stop using the words "disrupt" and "disruptive" once and for all? Nowadays in absolute most cases they are egregiously misused.
That technology doesn't come from a desire to be free from labor, but from a desire for higher profits and as a result people work for the machines, rather than the other way around.
To quote Norm Macdonald, "No offense, but that sounds like some fucking commie gobbledygook."
It is not a result of an algorithm; it is a collection of decisions by corporations and policymakers
And those decisions are made from a range of options. Options that are created by technology.
Until there were computers, there was no option to send email. A telegram being a poor substitute. Until there were webcams, there was no option for cheap and reliable video-conferencing. Until there were photocopiers the only option to copy documents was carbon paper or Banda copiers: poor alternatives, but the only ones.
Technology created the options that corporations then adopted. Sometimes (like with video recorders) there were multiple options and people made a choice. But before those options appeared, there was no choice.
So it is quite reasonable to say that it is technology that is causing the disruption. It is providing the options for disruption. All businesses do is choose which one to adopt.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
... money has been decoupled from productive activity and investment seeking the highest returns and so gone largely into speculation and basically sophisticated forms of rent seeking and fraud. Let's be honest, technology just speeds this along by enabling big compaies to engage in labour arbitrage. Taking advantage of the huge wage differences of people across the globe thanks to the internet and most people don't have the money or are incapable of moving from where they are at from different reasons. This naive idea that human beings are fungible widgets has put a serious strain on society.
Let's not forget the concept of dead money, corporations are sitting on billions they are not investing in anyone or anything. We're experiecing total failure of capitalism and nobody noticed. AKA money is pooling in the hands of ceo's and the ceo's are just sitting on it, at sane society woud intervene and just start investing in people, tools and jobs if the corporate fatcats won't do it. So it's pure politics and mass political ignorance that's at the root of our problems. Basically people are rotting on the sidelines because our corporate leadership is an emporer with no clothes.
https://www.theglobeandmail.co...
What social phenomenon preceded Uber that enabled it? Unemployment? If that's the answer, then this pattern predicts everything and thereby predicts nothing.
People leaving restaurants and having to stand in the rain yelling at cars to flag down medallion cabs, and pondering, "There has to be a better way of doing this..."
So the whole Feudal system didn't exist? Castles as economic units controlled by a hierarchical power system were also a myth? So this is just wrong on facts. It's also wrong on conclusions. Without decimal numbers there would not have been a technology leap which occured in Europe after the crusades. That means no algebra. No subsequent cartesian geometry. And no calculus. No industrial revolution. Oh and all social orders stayed the same during all of these advances. It was all happening during the feudal time. Technology enables social changes. Sometimes they subsequently occur and sometimes they don't.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up. The reason people don't want to hire people to do the work is because Technology is overall cheaper.
While it makes good business sense to do so, if those now unemployed workers can't find a job because other people aren't hiring people, then eventually there will be few people left to buy goods and services. Peak capitalism looks horrible.
and replace them with 60 hour work weeks and mini med Health Plans.
Industrial Revolution: You're saying the this was done by choice of "let's do it under one roof ..so... we can save heating costs??" Wtf, is wrong with you? MACHINES bought by CAPITAL where put in factories that demanded PEOPLE to operate them creating JOBS creating more CAPITAL for the owners. Industrial revolution was ONLY a mechanical one driven by private CAPITAL.
You could make the case that taxicab rent seeking created an environment where the public was very poorly served. And that was the social phenomenon that led to Uber. But then every business opportunity caused by incumbent businesses offering poor service fits the pattern and we are back to this theory predicting everything.
A little etymology.
See... Those farmers/"makers" processed raw materials into stuff and sold their stuff to people who did things with them and they were called "factors".
Then they were gathered into FACTORIES where they processed those same raw materials.
I often sneer at academics, but the level of academics has declined so far that's no fun anymore.
I expect better of NYT.
that it wasn't a bullet that killed JFK, it was the person who fired it. Which sounds reasonable, except that in the absence of said bullet he'd still be alive and that it was the accuracy of modern firearms that made the shot possible...
In the last 50 years America has doubled it's manufacturing output while cutting manufacturing jobs by 1/3. Our public policy has almost completely ignored that. The end of large scale manufacturing jobs as the primary employer is more than anything what killed Unions, and most economists agree that loss of bargaining power is why wages aren't going up even though unemployment is low.
This entire article strikes me as yet another attempt to fit the square peg that is corporate capitalism into the round whole that is society's well being. It's working backwards from it's conclusion.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Under the 'corruption' people were making a living wage. Now those people are comitting suicide as teenagers do their jobs. The teenagers in the meantime used to make better wages at fast food restaurants. I'll take that corruption any day of the week.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Yeah, mod this down because it is too close to the uncomfortable truth. You are not special, you have to earn your own way in life. You take resources? You have to provide resources.
It really is that simple. Just solve more problems than you create, and you will never have trouble getting or keeping a job. Technological innovation, government policies, cultural conventions, and the opinions of the director of workplace studies at Cornell have nothing to do with it.
There are two ways of making this formula work. You can minimize the term on the right, or you can maximize the term on the left. Let's consider both cases.
The principal problem you will create as an employee (or business owner) is that you will expect to be paid. Your employer/customer does not want to do this. It will be a problem for them. This is an unavoidable problem. There are other factors on the right-hand side that are avoidable, however. You can minimize the problems you create by being a nice person. Don't be a prima donna or a jerk. There is an entire self-help industry devoted with minimizing the right-hand side of the formula, so I'll say no more about it here.
While there are limits on how much you can minimize the right-hand side, there are no limits on how much you can increase the left-hand side. So the best approach for getting and keeping a job is to maximize the number of problems you solve. Note that the better of a problem solver you become, the more income you can command without unbalancing the formula. So if you want to achieve "employment security", probably your best approach is just to learn to be a better problem solver.
So how do you learn to solve problems? Practice solving problems!
Everybody is all about STEM education these days, as they observe that people with STEM degrees tend to be better employed. My theory is this has not so much to do with the subject matter of STEM as it does with the way STEM is taught. In your STEM classes, the homework and the tests and most of what you do is solve problems. You get lots and lots of practice solving problems. And that ends up making the students better problem solvers. Courses in which you write long papers tracing the development of gender stereotypes in 17th century New England farming communities do not provide nearly as much practice at problem solving, which results in graduates who are not as good at solving problems, and who therefore have more difficulty making the aforementioned formula work.
The problems you solve need not be technical problems. Problem solving tends to be an easily transferable skill. You might develop problem solving skills in math class, or playing chess, or working puzzles, but then end up applying your problem-solving prowess to management or administrative or marketing problems.
The key is to practice solving problems. Practice constantly. Make it your lifestyle to solve problems. Make problem solving part of who you are. Do you see some litter on the ground? Pick it up and you have solved a problem. Are there dirty dishes in the sink? Wash them and put them away - another problem solved. Do you see a shopping cart that some prior patron has left in the middle of the parking lot at the grocery store? Push that cart to the cart corral, or back into the store. (Do not be tempted to say "that is somebody else's problem". Your goal should be to solve problems, not assign blame for them.)
If you dare: end each day be reviewing what you have done and detailing the problems you have created and the problems you have solved, and resolve to do better the next day. If you are very brave, you can ask your spouse/significant-other to help you with that task, as they will often be able to point out countless problems that you created or problem-solving opportunities that you omitted because
Under the 'corruption' people were making a living wage. Now those people are comitting suicide as teenagers do their jobs. The teenagers in the meantime used to make better wages at fast food restaurants. I'll take that corruption any day of the week.
Note how you don't care about the public at all. That's why Uber wins, because you guys think the public exists to provide someone with "a living wage" rather than ride services existing to serve the public at a market wage. The public decided they wanted to ride, not be ridden.
"If I had mod points, I'd mod you up."
Simple minded view which indicates blindness to the complications which have arisen.
It starts out that to consume resources, man must invest and work to gather those resources.
Next, trade enters the picture and individuals exchange resources and both are better off.
Then banking enters the system, and rather than storing valuable resources, a placeholder is stored, an I.O.U. of sorts. Wealth is no longer perishable, it can be accumulated or saved over time.
Then those that save wealth, who store favors, gain a disproportionate advantage over those that don't. They are able to acquire ownership over greater means of production, and take a larger share of the resources, or the stored value of those resources.
Next the wealthy are then able to incentivize the workforce to engineer more effect means of production. Which allows them to gain more resources for less effort.
Then things start to break down. A growing population requires more resources. Those who control the means of production can do so at such high levels of efficiency that they do not need the laborers. Without a need, there is no incentive to redistribute resources. Any resources the workers provide only dilute the value of those resouces, and thus reduces the resources gained in return.
The next stage is one of two things, either those who have optimized the means of production begin giving generously from their capacity, rather than according to supply and demand economics, or the there is a layering effect, where the classes become separate economies or even nations. A third world country living amongst a first world country, potentially warring for the resources contained within.
Apparently you are ignoring the fact that Uber makes the roads more congested for everyone else. More cars means more wear and tear on the roads and more pollution. Many passengers who would have taken a bus or train or walked or biked, now use an Uber. You may be happy you can get a cheap ride, but since Uber also operates at a loss, you are being subsidized by tax payers, drivers, and Uber shareholders. Don't talk to me about not caring about the public.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
There is a old Bible verse about feeding 5,000 people. It starts with one basket containing a few loaves of bread and fish.
As a people we produce more everday than we need. We have more than enough for everybody, but our economic system does not value human life intrinsically.
Thus we value the individual's ability to increase production capacity and wealth stores. Not all are equally suited to such advanced thinking and foresight. In a purely evolutionary system these once strong laborers, the former backbones of our economy, the shoulders upon which we have stood, would die off due to not being able to acquire and manage the resources to compete in an ever increasingly intellectually challenging economic game.
But there are those which ask the moral and ethical questions of "what am I working for?"... Are we merely working to i crease the wealth of a "noble few", while hoping to skim enough resources off the top to survive? Or are we working for some greater purpose? Are we working to ensure that all of humanity is free to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Oh and by the way, in cities that have studied it to date, Uber has not made a dent in impaired driving cases either.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Many passengers who would have taken a bus or train or walked or biked, now use an Uber.
People in my home town wouldn't have taken a bus today because today is Sunday, one of the 58 days of the year when the bus drivers are at home with their families. (Source: fwcitilink.com)
Many passengers who would have taken a bus or train or walked or biked,
Or just drove home drunk.
now use an Uber.
Yeah, they get to choose instead of corrupt governments choosing for them. That's why Uber wins — by serving the public.
The government mandated various thing like workers and public liability insurance this could be dealt with too it affected everyone and could be shown to clients and the better employers had it anyway, actually levelled the playing field a bit. Then the last 3-4 years the workers got lazy spent to much time on their phones so the job started taking longer and longer on top of the extra costs impact from distracted workers on insurance etc.. So I made a piece of very low tech less than $500 that modified the main tool used on the job. A robot was available for $130,000. The job is now done by 1 person in 2 days. I no longer hire those workers and cut insurance costs by 80% as its based on number of workers and wages paid.
So I like said a combination of things. All it takes is one last push for that the necessity to go over the edge
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Star Trek The Next Generation - S4E15 - First Contact
passphrase : formally
Like I said, Uber has not made a dent in impaired driving. 'Corrupt governments' are not choosing for them. They can buy a car or take a taxi. Just because a person can take a car and give a person a ride for cheaper doesn't mean it is good for everyone. It may be good for you to get a cheaper ride.... You know what, fuck it. You obviously don't care about the people you are hurting. You completely ignored what I said.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You can say anything you want, but that doesnâ(TM)t make it true.
Drunk driving arrests are way down after Uber and lyft become available:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/10/drunk-driving-arrests-decline-in-some-cities/
Studies by the University of California at Davis and Moll Law Group found that arrests had declined by 32 percent in San Diego, 28 percent in San Jose, 26 percent in Sacramento and 14 percent in both Los Angeles and the San Francisco-Oakland area in the two years after ride sharing began in each of the areas.
Results are widely varied
"The team delved into whether ride-hailing affected crash rates in four cities: Las Vegas, Portland, Ore., Reno, Nev., and San Antonio, Texas — American cities in which Uber, the nation's largest ride-sharing company, launched, ceased, then resumed operations. And the results were mixed. Crashes involving alcohol decreased as Uber resumed services in Portland and San Antonio, but not Reno. And in no case did Uber's resumption of service result in fewer total injury crashes or serious crashes overall."
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Remember French revolution, this time, the guillotines will be high tech - with LAN interface and laser sharpen blades.
Besides, no matter what there is a cost borne by tax payers, other drivers and Uber themselves.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Cheaper, easier alternatives to driving drunk mean fewer people driving drunk?
We're going to need some carefully designed "studies" to deny something like that.
In a lot of cases, people have their car there and want to drive it home or Uber is still too expensive for them or too inconvenient. Don't assume Uber is the solution for everyone's problems.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
You're proving my point, it's not a new thing. Disruptive regulation-skirting existed, the tech was what lowered the cost of entry into delivering the service. Otherwise they'd need call centers and dispatchers, like taxis.
The kinds of social decisions we can make, that is to say, the kind that are practical, are determined by the technology available.
You can't choose to have a city, and to have zero slave labor, if you tech level is only what the Romans had. The choice to abolish slavery was made only after the tech level made people productive enough that the city could function on the effort of paid laborers who are free to choose their own jobs.
And so on.
A case study is the agrarian movement, grain farmers in the north west USA.
Who controlled the production, storage, transport or markets.
Forming groups, forcing others out of business, manipulating the markets.
Farmers co-operatives, middlemen, large business, opportunists, monopolies, government regulation.
Different business structures formed in different states and went through a number of phases over time.
It got complicated and they played rough because there was a lot of money and power up for grabs.
Go well
It's about the current trend of people believing they can survive like a garage band pre record label signing.
That's HR's job.
How, pray tell, is weaving cloth on your own and selling it to a distributor "sharing directly in the profits of their efforts" but being paid directly for your work is not? Both are receiving compensation for their work.
Especially when everyone thinks they should "get ahead".
So much seeing of trees here. Not much seeing of forest.
You're in a cage with a machine that gives you plastic tokens which you can exchange for food pellets when you press a lever. One day the pressing the lever gives you less tokens than you expect.
The dumber ones of you say "who's to blame for this? Stop other from pressing the lever and getting the tokens!"
The less stupid say "I should get more pellets per token!"
Most of you just press than lever harder and harder.
Almost no one says "Why am I in a CAGE?"
(And when someone DOES, you desperately try to silence him or her.)
So much wrong in one post.
Uber makes roads more conjested?
No. Just no. If Tom takes a cab, drives his own car or takes Uber the same car is on the road. Uber and a cab as options removes Tom's personal car in a parking space, so less parking congestion. In areas like Manhattan where Taxi medallions are used to limit competition in the taxi industry and pass out favors to cronies, we hear about Uber possibly causing congestion. If true, that would simply mean that the artificial limits imposed by the state meant that the previous fleet was under-serving the public.
Buses and trains are extremely heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. (in New York the subsidy is as much as $7 per ride. And they are pretty much the ideal case for a subway system) And trains don't go where Mr. Uber User wants to go. If they did, he'd take the train for a couple of bucks instead of an Uber for a couple of tens of bucks.
Nobody takes an Uber for a commute that they would normally have walked. That's just silly.
Uber operating at a loss doesn't mean that they are being subsidized by the taxpayers. Or the drivers. That's just silly. Taxpayers don't enter into it. Drivers work for an agreed reimbursement scale. They agree to specific compensation for each ride, before they pick the ride up. If Uber operates at a loss company-wide while they are in growth mode, that is up to the shareholders. You could have mentioned any lenders as well. Those groups seem content with the progress Uber is making.
Your take is profoundly ignorant. People voluntarily coming together to provide a service that is in demand is by definition in the public interest. If the public wasn't interested in getting better transportation services, there would be no opportunity for Uber and Lyft.
So a study entirely designed to debunk the studies that show that Uber is good for reducing drinking and driving shows...... wait for it.... that Uber reduces drinking and driving, reduces drunk driving crashes and doesn't cost the taxpayers one dime, and doesn't infringe on citizens rights in any way.
But the overall rate of crashes (which is much higher than just alcohol related crashes) was not statistically significantly altered.
What a cherry-picked load of crap.
The overall conclusion is "Uber is good for the drunk driving problem". Yet somehow that is supposed to be spun into "it doesn't help drunk driving".
Wow, that's a lot of dumb all stacked in one place.
Yup. You nailed him there.
Uber doesn't solve every problem, all the time. Therefore we must ban Uber! I mean, yeah it is cheaper than the alternatives. But maybe it isn't cheap enough. And it is way more convenient than the alternatives. But maybe it isn't convenient enough!!
We must ban this abomination before someone else is burdened by getting a more convenient, cheaper and more comfortable ride!
What a tool.
Are you kidding, bro? Uber has done more in a few years to reduce drunk driving than all the public service announcements and all the police jackboot crackdown campaigns ever in history.
There are big problems with Uber's business model and their abusive labor practices. (How can they be the uncontested market leader, set their own prices, grossly underpay their workers, externalize their capital costs onto their workers - and still lose billions every year? Good old fashioned embezzlement??) But that doesn't mean there is no public benefit whatsoever from their service.
Oversimplification on your part, as well..
No doubt you are partially correct, but I'd like to add that the government certainly played a role. What's a taxi license cost in SF? Here's an excerpt from a news article
Some drivers spent 10, 15 or even 20 years on a waiting list, just for a chance to buy one for upwards of $20,000 to $25,000.
That is fucking insane...The government created or at least maintained an artificial shortage of taxis.. That fucks over the consumer.. We haven't ever (that I am aware of) had anything even approaching a free market..
$25K is not reasonable... And 20 years is not reasonable...
This is completely false.
In fact, some cities that depend on traffic ticket revenues are being hurt severely by Uber. They depend on those drunk driving arrests and tickets for revenue, and that revenue is dropping precipitously.
https://www.miamiherald.com/ne...
https://www.mercurynews.com/20...
I get it. You hate Uber. You are going to shill away, no matter what reality says. But lets get real, worst case scenario, Uber is just another cab company. If they are bad in the ways that you believe, they'll crater on their own, without any need for FUD spreading.
It's more like lazy bums looking for handouts while humans creates extinction event and topple all ecosystems for profit while lying.
Great! You have a real job for them? Why didn't you say so!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Simple enough, remove the tech in question and measure the changes. I think one will conclude this article as foundationless
Seriously?
Johnston-Forest
Operaismo / Autonomia
Processed World?
This congestion also translates to more money spent around town and taxes collected as people are more confident in their ability to get from one place to another, and have more time to do it usefully. Congestion is also symptom of people spending money. It's not necessarily simply a bad thing.
Regulate Uber because they make life harder for everyone else not using Uber, exactly. Taxi's were part of a city transportation structure, Uber isn't. Companies who don't play along make things harder on everyone else. I'm not sure why the snide remarks, especially since you are electing to ignore most of my points.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Its a simple enough concept
things that were not possible before become possible and the range of potentials expands
hurry up and get functional nano-tech working - i want fully postindustrial extant
The employees of a business do not produce enough value to keep the company viable. By their very definition, they get less for their labor than what the company gets in value. So they can never afford more than what their company continuously produces; employed or not.
Additionally, lets say the market demands drop because of earnings shortages. What happens is either the service ends or the company gets replaced by a cheaper running solution to reduce their market price. Such as lower wages for the employees or shutting down of production lines.
Keeping people employed for the sake of employment has been proven to be detrimental to society many many times in history. Just because someone is employed and obtaining a salary doesn't mean anything. There must either be value generate or subsidized from somewhere else; reducing the efficient of that other process.
As for Automation, we have yet to see an instance in history where it has been detrimental to society as a whole over the long term.
You're being modded down because you're an uniformed idiot.
The US graduates 1.5 STEM students for every STEM job opening. Simple math that even you can do will show that means a whole lot of people who "did the right thing", got a useful degree can't get a real job.
"Well, they shouldn't have done that!!". Well grandpa, you just spent the last 20 years saying they should do that. In fact, "go get a degree in CS or something useful" has been your mantra for anyone who is looking for a job. Since you turned out to be massively wrong, why the hell should they listen to your rants now?
Note how you don't care about the public at all.
Note how you do not realize that the qasi-employees are members of "the public" that you are so concerned about.
If you want to say "customers", say "customers". "The public" has interest far beyond any single business.
That's why Uber wins — by serving the public.
No, Uber wins by receiving massive subsidies from the government. In the form of the roads Uber drives on, and the welfare programs Uber drivers can turn to when they make below a living wage.
So good news! You're paying Uber whether or not you use their service.
But please stop pretending that Uber is some sort of innovative capitalist success story. They're just yet another case of a pig at the government trough, just with better PR.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/...
This and other similar stories are starting to make me wonder if the "gig economy" was at least partly manufactured as a marketing ploy by Uber and Airbnb and cousins, as a way of getting people to jump on the bandwagon.
Yep, they just arn't desperate enough for the STEM people, maybe we should just blame the liberal arts graduates for not making more robots are awesome and I should get one stories instead of the cliche of evil robot slaves over throwing their masters and taking over the world.