Companies will charge you what they can charge you. Consumer cost is not set by expense to provide the product, and the goal of a company is to mark up their service as much as they can. Consumer cost is only set by the alternatives that are available to consumers. Right now taxis cost as much as they do because they are more convenient in many situations than taking your car. So they are able to charge at a level that is more expensive than using your own vehicle. The lack of a driver won't motivate them to pass that cost savings onto consumers unless there is a more premium service putting downward pressure on them. Perhaps if there is a teleportation service that costs $50 to teleport you to the airport with your bags, then self driving cars would feel they need to beat that price and charge $3. But without any viable alternatives, they will keep charging the same as taxis cost today for providing the same service. Omitting the driver is a way for them to make more profit, not to charge you less.
I thought the same thing. I'm probably a curmudgeon as well, but just to let you know you're not alone. It's like an attempt to get every bit of sensationalism one can out of an article. I think we get so inundated with current news on the internet people try to use language to make it seem like this is MORE current news.
A big question on my mind, is if there is a difference in the ability of an expensive self driving car to drive safely as opposed to a cheaper car, how will that work? That would be somewhat akin to having economy seats on an airplane with a pilot with 100 hours of flying experience, and putting the pilots with 2000 hours of experience in planes with more expensive seats. Doesn't really seem very fair to me. I realize more expensive cars may have better passive protection for passengers today, but we're talking about actually giving the wealthy better drivers.
A lot of people think that insurance companies will be happy to cover the flaws of self driving cars because over all they will be safer, so the automated car companies will be left with zero liability for everything. There, I just typed that with a straight face.
I think right now it kind of looks like a sham and a lot of hype, but the danger for a company like Ford is that someone actually will make a breakthrough and then they will be left in the dust.
There are a lot of dreamers. They dream that a self driving car will be just as cheap as a manual car is today. They dream that a self driving car will get them places as quickly as if they drive themselves. They dream that, if they hail a self driving car it will be like having their own and cheaper and more convenient than a taxi. They dream that the safety and convenience in a car they buy will be equal to that of a wealthy person. You remind them that they will have to fit into the economy somehow, and that car companies expect to be paid for this technology more than for a manual car and they just get angry at being woken.
Why would I own a car if I could call a taxi? It's the same thing. If you think summoning a self driving car will be cheaper than taking a taxi today you're dreaming.
This is why I'm happy with cash and credit cards. Credit cards may be tracking me as well but every iteration of higher technology just becomes more and more invasive. It really saps my desire for other payment methods.
This really means very little. The real question is, could someone be in the market that sells a dishwasher with the same features and works just as well and take less of a markup thereby selling it at a price equal to lesser dishwashers, or is it priced at $1500 because "people will pay for it".
That's going to get pretty complex. On a busy highway will AI ever work well enough to detect an ice patch so that it is slow enough by the time it reaches it? Also, there will be a lot of situations where an intersection obscured by a building, so no matter how well it works there will only be a few seconds to stop before a person on a bicycle fails to stop at a stop sign and drives onto the road, so do you want to subject someone to stopping that fast. Maybe on long throughways designed for it but not during most city driving.
Yet we have companies like Amazon with their employees feeling the need to camp in the parking lot. It seems things are going the other way in reality. They only want staff content and motivated enough to not go to another job.
Also it seems these days you can't buy a product without some sort of planned obsolescence built in. I had the blower motor for my central air conditioning die on me two years in a row, but off warranty of course. So I asked the repair guy 'how do I pay more to get a better quality motor that won't die on me?' The answer was that I couldn't. I had to take what they gave me and had no choice.
The question is, should a person be paid based on the value the company enjoys from their employment or should they be paid relative to what others in the area are paying. If those 5000 workers make up 95% of a company that makes $100 million a year, and if those workers disappear and the company makes $0, shouldn't those workers get much of a share of the profits? To pay someone the minimum you can get away with in any given area is just a race to minimum wage and isn't in the workers best interest. Unions are the only mechanism I know of to equalize this imbalance somewhat.
I'm surprised you didn't laugh out loud at the concept that labor law can protect workers interests adequately. I have known so many people working unpaid hours that just put up with it because they know complaining to a labor board about a huge corporation with infinite resources will probably just make things worse for them.
Personally I'm wondering how the hell else unions ever get started. Basically Musk is just whining and bitching about the threat of a union here, let's be frank.
I don't know the area, but is Sacramento 1/2 hour away from the factory? If there is no inexpensive housing within a reasonable commute to your job (45 minutes max) then what you say is beside the point.
The only case where a union and an employer see eye to eye is a situation where the employer is willing to give more than the bare minimum to the employee for that type of work in order to achieve a higher morale and satisfaction working there. This seems to be less and less common as time goes on so they are automatically at odds.
Oh, another one, why does Netflix get their hands tied by all kinds of contractual agreements when that is the type of TV that everyone really wants? I can't say I know anyone who doesn't want TV shows on demand on their schedule with no ads. If capitalism really provided products that people wanted, then all TV would be streaming by now. The consumer is hurt by barriers to the market that have been set up by the entrenched players that don't give customers what they want.
The problem is that there aren't any standouts and everything is rank and file on that pricepoint. You can get a minimum featured dishwasher for $100 and a full featured one for $1000 for sure, but what isn't there is the $150 dishwasher with all the features because the company just wants to sell you a good dishwasher and mark it up 10% instead of 100%. Look at all the patent wars that happen to force out the lower cost alternative that the big fish don't want on the market. Where is WebOS? Where is the phone with a bigger battery? Where are the competitive products that are made locally? Where are upgradable laptops and phones? There are great glaring gaps in the market if you look out of your box enough to see them.
Slashdot Mirror
Companies will charge you what they can charge you. Consumer cost is not set by expense to provide the product, and the goal of a company is to mark up their service as much as they can. Consumer cost is only set by the alternatives that are available to consumers. Right now taxis cost as much as they do because they are more convenient in many situations than taking your car. So they are able to charge at a level that is more expensive than using your own vehicle. The lack of a driver won't motivate them to pass that cost savings onto consumers unless there is a more premium service putting downward pressure on them. Perhaps if there is a teleportation service that costs $50 to teleport you to the airport with your bags, then self driving cars would feel they need to beat that price and charge $3. But without any viable alternatives, they will keep charging the same as taxis cost today for providing the same service. Omitting the driver is a way for them to make more profit, not to charge you less.
I thought the same thing. I'm probably a curmudgeon as well, but just to let you know you're not alone. It's like an attempt to get every bit of sensationalism one can out of an article. I think we get so inundated with current news on the internet people try to use language to make it seem like this is MORE current news.
A big question on my mind, is if there is a difference in the ability of an expensive self driving car to drive safely as opposed to a cheaper car, how will that work? That would be somewhat akin to having economy seats on an airplane with a pilot with 100 hours of flying experience, and putting the pilots with 2000 hours of experience in planes with more expensive seats. Doesn't really seem very fair to me. I realize more expensive cars may have better passive protection for passengers today, but we're talking about actually giving the wealthy better drivers.
A lot of people think that insurance companies will be happy to cover the flaws of self driving cars because over all they will be safer, so the automated car companies will be left with zero liability for everything. There, I just typed that with a straight face.
I think right now it kind of looks like a sham and a lot of hype, but the danger for a company like Ford is that someone actually will make a breakthrough and then they will be left in the dust.
There are a lot of dreamers. They dream that a self driving car will be just as cheap as a manual car is today. They dream that a self driving car will get them places as quickly as if they drive themselves. They dream that, if they hail a self driving car it will be like having their own and cheaper and more convenient than a taxi. They dream that the safety and convenience in a car they buy will be equal to that of a wealthy person. You remind them that they will have to fit into the economy somehow, and that car companies expect to be paid for this technology more than for a manual car and they just get angry at being woken.
People are going to have to actually be able to, you know, afford it, before it becomes required.
Why would I own a car if I could call a taxi? It's the same thing. If you think summoning a self driving car will be cheaper than taking a taxi today you're dreaming.
I'd say 1) is a perfect time to mention even a broken clock is right two times a day.
The only winning move is not to play.
This is why I'm happy with cash and credit cards. Credit cards may be tracking me as well but every iteration of higher technology just becomes more and more invasive. It really saps my desire for other payment methods.
This really means very little. The real question is, could someone be in the market that sells a dishwasher with the same features and works just as well and take less of a markup thereby selling it at a price equal to lesser dishwashers, or is it priced at $1500 because "people will pay for it".
That's going to get pretty complex. On a busy highway will AI ever work well enough to detect an ice patch so that it is slow enough by the time it reaches it? Also, there will be a lot of situations where an intersection obscured by a building, so no matter how well it works there will only be a few seconds to stop before a person on a bicycle fails to stop at a stop sign and drives onto the road, so do you want to subject someone to stopping that fast. Maybe on long throughways designed for it but not during most city driving.
Did you purchase the no left turn upgrade?
Ok so no one can realistically drive 2 hours back and forth to a job every day. That's all you would be doing.
Yet we have companies like Amazon with their employees feeling the need to camp in the parking lot. It seems things are going the other way in reality. They only want staff content and motivated enough to not go to another job.
Also it seems these days you can't buy a product without some sort of planned obsolescence built in. I had the blower motor for my central air conditioning die on me two years in a row, but off warranty of course. So I asked the repair guy 'how do I pay more to get a better quality motor that won't die on me?' The answer was that I couldn't. I had to take what they gave me and had no choice.
The question is, should a person be paid based on the value the company enjoys from their employment or should they be paid relative to what others in the area are paying. If those 5000 workers make up 95% of a company that makes $100 million a year, and if those workers disappear and the company makes $0, shouldn't those workers get much of a share of the profits? To pay someone the minimum you can get away with in any given area is just a race to minimum wage and isn't in the workers best interest. Unions are the only mechanism I know of to equalize this imbalance somewhat.
I'm surprised you didn't laugh out loud at the concept that labor law can protect workers interests adequately. I have known so many people working unpaid hours that just put up with it because they know complaining to a labor board about a huge corporation with infinite resources will probably just make things worse for them.
Personally I'm wondering how the hell else unions ever get started. Basically Musk is just whining and bitching about the threat of a union here, let's be frank.
I don't know the area, but is Sacramento 1/2 hour away from the factory? If there is no inexpensive housing within a reasonable commute to your job (45 minutes max) then what you say is beside the point.
The only case where a union and an employer see eye to eye is a situation where the employer is willing to give more than the bare minimum to the employee for that type of work in order to achieve a higher morale and satisfaction working there. This seems to be less and less common as time goes on so they are automatically at odds.
What's the difference? If the legal work week is 40 hours then it's 40 hours. Period. Ask people to work more, don't tell them.
Oh, another one, why does Netflix get their hands tied by all kinds of contractual agreements when that is the type of TV that everyone really wants? I can't say I know anyone who doesn't want TV shows on demand on their schedule with no ads. If capitalism really provided products that people wanted, then all TV would be streaming by now. The consumer is hurt by barriers to the market that have been set up by the entrenched players that don't give customers what they want.
The problem is that there aren't any standouts and everything is rank and file on that pricepoint. You can get a minimum featured dishwasher for $100 and a full featured one for $1000 for sure, but what isn't there is the $150 dishwasher with all the features because the company just wants to sell you a good dishwasher and mark it up 10% instead of 100%. Look at all the patent wars that happen to force out the lower cost alternative that the big fish don't want on the market. Where is WebOS? Where is the phone with a bigger battery? Where are the competitive products that are made locally? Where are upgradable laptops and phones? There are great glaring gaps in the market if you look out of your box enough to see them.