they’ll charge whatever’s most profitable but if two self driving transportation companies are in competition with each other and they both want to dominate the market, one might set their prices lower than the other to steal the market share. the only way that wouldn’t happen is with two monopolies agreeing to not undercut each other, which happens. but in general when a company has lower operational costs their goods will cost less too.
but if two self driving transportation companies are in competition with each other and they both want to dominate the market, one might set their prices lower than the other to steal the market share.
Or they all operate at a loss to undercut the others creating a battle of capital, those that run out first go out of business or are acquired by the remainder who then jack up the prices because you no longer have a choice.
it’d be more than thousands of people. but the thing is, when productivity is increased and more wealth is generated and people aren’t needed to do certain jobs anymore we have more free time or time to focus on stuff that we like or stuff that’s more productive like other work, that’s a good thing. the problem is when that excess wealth is generated it only going in the hands of the few. i would say it would be a good idea to tax the robots that start replacing jobs so that the wealth is spread amongst the people that lost their jobs and not just into the hands of the wealthy few. andrew yang talked about this a lot back in 2020 and a lot of what he predicted came true. he proposed a universal basic income to help redistribute wealth.
Bro, we’re so much more productive in every way than we’ve ever been. Every year it’s another tool and more promises that if we all buy into this billionaire’s new toy we’ll never work again and every year it’s more of the same. The only thing that ever comes true is that the rich take more and return less. Our productivity has never resulted in fewer work hours for the same or more money. The best we got was a reduction in work hours that people fought died over.
You’re cheering on and funding a future that wants to erase you, not benefit you. You cannot build the future you claim will exist if you start with a rotten foundation which can’t even offer more a couple days sick leave if you’re lucky, and which treats human beings as tools for the enrichment of a select handful of lazy parasites. You’re gunna build your replacement and then, as has always happened, you’ll ask for your reward and they’ll show you the fuckin’ door. How many pieces of media show that same naivety right before the scientist who made the villain strong gets used as a punching bag so no one else will benefit? It’s a tale as old as time, a lesson we cannot seem to learn.
i agree it’s a valid concern. but i don’t think the solution to not getting a reduction in work hours is to halt technological progress. i personally like andrew yangs idea. instead of halting progress we put a tax on the robots that replace our jobs and use the money generated to give back to the people. andrew yang supported a universal basic income program.
there’s a couple routes we can go. one is to halt the technological progress and keep the jobs that are currently here. that is status quo and personally it’s not the worse outcome, but it’s also not the best outcome. i’d rate it average, just staying where we are. (average scenario)
there’s option number 2. we allow the technological progress but don’t put any new taxes or regulations in place to let the new technological progress benefit the people. people lose their jobs and are not subsidized after losing their jobs and end up jobless, with no money, worse off than they were, while the rich tech people take even more profit than they’ve ever made before. goods will be produced at a much cheaper and more rapid rate, but less people will be able to afford their or basic living on their own. goods might also become cheaper because of the increase in supply and the lower cost of goods, but it doesn’t make up for the amount of money or meaning lost in people’s lives where they’re jobless and have no source of income. (worst case scenario)
and then there’s option 3, we allow the technological progress, but we regulate it and put taxes on the companies and corporations that profit from the new automation and machines. the money goes to the corporations partially, but a large chunk of it also goes to the people. in this scenario goods are produced cheaper, people that lose their jobs don’t lose as much value because they still get compensated through the taxing and spreading of wealth, and jobs that are repetitive and menial end up getting done by robots while more meaningful jobs that robots can’t do continue to be done by humans. (best case scenario)
personally i like option 3. i’d love to see self driving cars replace ubers, truck drivers, etc. i’d love to see fast food workers replaced by machines. all those shitty jobs that pay shit anyway and nobody wants to do get replaced by robots, and the people that lose those jobs still get compensated so they have a salary to live on.
what we’ve been doing is option 2, which is probably the worst case scenario. we need to move to option 3. more productivity is always good, we just need to spread the gains of our productivity to the people. you should look up andrew yang if you want to know more about this type of solution. the fact is though it’s not going to come by just trusting to corporations to tax themselves and spread their gains amongst the people, we need to elect someone that will enforce it. just like nobody would pay taxes in general if they didn’t have to.
Rather than having a bunch of self driving cars we could just… invest in public transit right now? Yknow the thing that gets people from point A to point B without having to buy a car? And it’s cheaper than a bunch of individual cars bc one train or bus can carry a lot more passengers than a car. And it’s more environmentally friendly. And it already exists, unlike fully autonomous self driving cars
we have public transit in the US, just not in low density suburban areas. because you can’t walk to a bus stop in the suburbs. it’s too far. you can’t just “invest” in that, at least not in an economically feasible way either. also there’s just annoyances, like a train can’t park in a parking lot. there’s a lot more walking to do. if public transit were this magical solution we would’ve already done it.
It’s called walkable cities and neighborhoods. We don’t need to have suburbs. They suck. Instead people should be able to walk to a grocery store within 15 minutes of their home. Other counties have walkable cities. Some cities in America are even walkable. It just means that we need to adjust our zoning laws and actually invest in our communities (including low density suburban and rural communities). We invest insane amounts of money into car infrastructure that could be going towards public transit. This would help not just people who don’t/wouldn’t own a car if public transit were realistically available to them, but it would also help people who choose to still own a car bc it would actually decrease traffic unlike adding another lane to a highway
how would you shift suburbs into walkabout cities and neighborhoods? personally i live in a suburb and i like it. but assuming they do suck, how would you transition already created suburbs into a walkable city? personally i think having the option to live in a suburb and being able to own your own car or in the future rent a self driving car would be preferred to having to live in a city.
Like I said, we need to adjust zoning laws so that we can have businesses in those areas so that people don’t need a car in order to access a grocery store. As for putting together a step by step plan, I’m not a city planner, just like you’re presumably not actually working on developing self driving cars. Also like I said, people would still own cars even with walkable communities and would have less traffic to deal with bc fewer drivers on the road. I’m not trying to take away your car
Where I live isn’t a fully walkable 15 minute community but it’s still pretty damn convenient. Within a 20-30 min walk to me we got a grocery store, library, post office, liquor store and breweries, auto shop, and a few small apartment buildings. Other than that it’s mostly just houses. Lots of people have cars but still have access to most daily essentials (aside from their actual place of work) within walking distance. Lots of people in the USA don’t even have a grocery store within a 30 min driving distance, let alone walking distance. That’s the sort of thing that walkable communities aim to fix
well the theory of how self driving cars would eventually become is if you have an app that can order a self driving vehicle, the closest one to you will be there for you. you can set the time you need it ready by and it will be there. we kinda already do that now with transportation apps, but with self driving cars i think it would be more efficient. idk. i guess owning, driving, and parking your own car will probably always be a little faster because its in the parking lot of your store or of your house right where you left it, but it wouldn’t be that much faster.
I get what you’re saying for sure. I work from
Home and don’t really need a car especially if auto drive cars are that prevalent. I guess where I’m also at is I want to own something and not just maybe payments to a corporation for rides
i think people should still be allowed to own their own cars, but getting rid of the need to own cars with cheap self driving transportation as an option sounds good to me. more options is always better. not everyone can afford to own their own car either. and if it also reduces deaths because self driving cars are better at driving it will also be a public service.
What from Over, Doordash or any of the others lead you to think it’ll be cheaper if/when that happens? Because these companies don’t have a spectacular record of looking for ways to save the customers any money, as far as I’m aware.
basically not having to pay delivery drivers, the work itself is cheaper, so they can lower costs. a lot of times high costs is due to operational costs which includes employees and if operational costs are brought down prices on things like doordash would go down too.
i agree with you they would try to profit more, (they’re a business so of course). but i think lowering operational costs allows them to lower their prices too, while also profiting more. we need a good way to ensure monopolies don’t just all agree to set a standard price and not compete with each other, i haven’t thought of one yet except outright monopoly busting. but i do think in general lowering costs to create goods allows goods to be cheaper especially when they’re facing and trying to undercut other competitors/competition.
That is what capitalism was supposed to be, yet, here we are. I want what you say, but that is wishful thinking at this point. Unless some weird company or individual with unlimited funds decides at some point to do just that, which would make all other businesses rethink their ways because every client would be jumping ship, I honestly don’t see that happening in oír lifetime.
when self driving cars get here these jobs will all be gone and delivery will be super cheap. i can’t wait.
lmao, you think they’re going to start charging less for their service after you’ve been gleefully paying full price for it all this time?
You’re in for a rude awakening.
they’ll charge whatever’s most profitable but if two self driving transportation companies are in competition with each other and they both want to dominate the market, one might set their prices lower than the other to steal the market share. the only way that wouldn’t happen is with two monopolies agreeing to not undercut each other, which happens. but in general when a company has lower operational costs their goods will cost less too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_pricing
Lol. Lmao even
You’ll pay more and think you’re getting a deal until you see what your neighbor is paying.
i mean they’re gonna charge whatever makes them the most profit regardless
But I thought we were going to get lower prices? /s
At least you understand your original point was bullshit.
Or they all operate at a loss to undercut the others creating a battle of capital, those that run out first go out of business or are acquired by the remainder who then jack up the prices because you no longer have a choice.
See taxi companies vs Uber and Lyft.
“… and other lies the capital class tells gullible rubes”
Being excited about the prospect of thousands of people losing their jobs is really strange.
it’d be more than thousands of people. but the thing is, when productivity is increased and more wealth is generated and people aren’t needed to do certain jobs anymore we have more free time or time to focus on stuff that we like or stuff that’s more productive like other work, that’s a good thing. the problem is when that excess wealth is generated it only going in the hands of the few. i would say it would be a good idea to tax the robots that start replacing jobs so that the wealth is spread amongst the people that lost their jobs and not just into the hands of the wealthy few. andrew yang talked about this a lot back in 2020 and a lot of what he predicted came true. he proposed a universal basic income to help redistribute wealth.
Bro, we’re so much more productive in every way than we’ve ever been. Every year it’s another tool and more promises that if we all buy into this billionaire’s new toy we’ll never work again and every year it’s more of the same. The only thing that ever comes true is that the rich take more and return less. Our productivity has never resulted in fewer work hours for the same or more money. The best we got was a reduction in work hours that people fought died over.
You’re cheering on and funding a future that wants to erase you, not benefit you. You cannot build the future you claim will exist if you start with a rotten foundation which can’t even offer more a couple days sick leave if you’re lucky, and which treats human beings as tools for the enrichment of a select handful of lazy parasites. You’re gunna build your replacement and then, as has always happened, you’ll ask for your reward and they’ll show you the fuckin’ door. How many pieces of media show that same naivety right before the scientist who made the villain strong gets used as a punching bag so no one else will benefit? It’s a tale as old as time, a lesson we cannot seem to learn.
i agree it’s a valid concern. but i don’t think the solution to not getting a reduction in work hours is to halt technological progress. i personally like andrew yangs idea. instead of halting progress we put a tax on the robots that replace our jobs and use the money generated to give back to the people. andrew yang supported a universal basic income program. there’s a couple routes we can go. one is to halt the technological progress and keep the jobs that are currently here. that is status quo and personally it’s not the worse outcome, but it’s also not the best outcome. i’d rate it average, just staying where we are. (average scenario)
there’s option number 2. we allow the technological progress but don’t put any new taxes or regulations in place to let the new technological progress benefit the people. people lose their jobs and are not subsidized after losing their jobs and end up jobless, with no money, worse off than they were, while the rich tech people take even more profit than they’ve ever made before. goods will be produced at a much cheaper and more rapid rate, but less people will be able to afford their or basic living on their own. goods might also become cheaper because of the increase in supply and the lower cost of goods, but it doesn’t make up for the amount of money or meaning lost in people’s lives where they’re jobless and have no source of income. (worst case scenario)
and then there’s option 3, we allow the technological progress, but we regulate it and put taxes on the companies and corporations that profit from the new automation and machines. the money goes to the corporations partially, but a large chunk of it also goes to the people. in this scenario goods are produced cheaper, people that lose their jobs don’t lose as much value because they still get compensated through the taxing and spreading of wealth, and jobs that are repetitive and menial end up getting done by robots while more meaningful jobs that robots can’t do continue to be done by humans. (best case scenario)
personally i like option 3. i’d love to see self driving cars replace ubers, truck drivers, etc. i’d love to see fast food workers replaced by machines. all those shitty jobs that pay shit anyway and nobody wants to do get replaced by robots, and the people that lose those jobs still get compensated so they have a salary to live on.
what we’ve been doing is option 2, which is probably the worst case scenario. we need to move to option 3. more productivity is always good, we just need to spread the gains of our productivity to the people. you should look up andrew yang if you want to know more about this type of solution. the fact is though it’s not going to come by just trusting to corporations to tax themselves and spread their gains amongst the people, we need to elect someone that will enforce it. just like nobody would pay taxes in general if they didn’t have to.
Working for walkability in cities also combat self driving cars.
what do you mean?
Keep waiting lol
bro it’ll be here i hope in at least 10 years. then we wont need to buy cars, we can just call a self driving uber and it’ll be cheaper.
Rather than having a bunch of self driving cars we could just… invest in public transit right now? Yknow the thing that gets people from point A to point B without having to buy a car? And it’s cheaper than a bunch of individual cars bc one train or bus can carry a lot more passengers than a car. And it’s more environmentally friendly. And it already exists, unlike fully autonomous self driving cars
we have public transit in the US, just not in low density suburban areas. because you can’t walk to a bus stop in the suburbs. it’s too far. you can’t just “invest” in that, at least not in an economically feasible way either. also there’s just annoyances, like a train can’t park in a parking lot. there’s a lot more walking to do. if public transit were this magical solution we would’ve already done it.
It’s called walkable cities and neighborhoods. We don’t need to have suburbs. They suck. Instead people should be able to walk to a grocery store within 15 minutes of their home. Other counties have walkable cities. Some cities in America are even walkable. It just means that we need to adjust our zoning laws and actually invest in our communities (including low density suburban and rural communities). We invest insane amounts of money into car infrastructure that could be going towards public transit. This would help not just people who don’t/wouldn’t own a car if public transit were realistically available to them, but it would also help people who choose to still own a car bc it would actually decrease traffic unlike adding another lane to a highway
how would you shift suburbs into walkabout cities and neighborhoods? personally i live in a suburb and i like it. but assuming they do suck, how would you transition already created suburbs into a walkable city? personally i think having the option to live in a suburb and being able to own your own car or in the future rent a self driving car would be preferred to having to live in a city.
Like I said, we need to adjust zoning laws so that we can have businesses in those areas so that people don’t need a car in order to access a grocery store. As for putting together a step by step plan, I’m not a city planner, just like you’re presumably not actually working on developing self driving cars. Also like I said, people would still own cars even with walkable communities and would have less traffic to deal with bc fewer drivers on the road. I’m not trying to take away your car
Where I live isn’t a fully walkable 15 minute community but it’s still pretty damn convenient. Within a 20-30 min walk to me we got a grocery store, library, post office, liquor store and breweries, auto shop, and a few small apartment buildings. Other than that it’s mostly just houses. Lots of people have cars but still have access to most daily essentials (aside from their actual place of work) within walking distance. Lots of people in the USA don’t even have a grocery store within a 30 min driving distance, let alone walking distance. That’s the sort of thing that walkable communities aim to fix
Depends on what you do for work. My wife is all over the place with clients, she will always need a vehicle
well the theory of how self driving cars would eventually become is if you have an app that can order a self driving vehicle, the closest one to you will be there for you. you can set the time you need it ready by and it will be there. we kinda already do that now with transportation apps, but with self driving cars i think it would be more efficient. idk. i guess owning, driving, and parking your own car will probably always be a little faster because its in the parking lot of your store or of your house right where you left it, but it wouldn’t be that much faster.
I get what you’re saying for sure. I work from Home and don’t really need a car especially if auto drive cars are that prevalent. I guess where I’m also at is I want to own something and not just maybe payments to a corporation for rides
i think people should still be allowed to own their own cars, but getting rid of the need to own cars with cheap self driving transportation as an option sounds good to me. more options is always better. not everyone can afford to own their own car either. and if it also reduces deaths because self driving cars are better at driving it will also be a public service.
I’ll take this option for sure
What from Over, Doordash or any of the others lead you to think it’ll be cheaper if/when that happens? Because these companies don’t have a spectacular record of looking for ways to save the customers any money, as far as I’m aware.
basically not having to pay delivery drivers, the work itself is cheaper, so they can lower costs. a lot of times high costs is due to operational costs which includes employees and if operational costs are brought down prices on things like doordash would go down too.
I honestly doubt that those savings would go to the clients, in all likelihood, they would just become profit margin.
i agree with you they would try to profit more, (they’re a business so of course). but i think lowering operational costs allows them to lower their prices too, while also profiting more. we need a good way to ensure monopolies don’t just all agree to set a standard price and not compete with each other, i haven’t thought of one yet except outright monopoly busting. but i do think in general lowering costs to create goods allows goods to be cheaper especially when they’re facing and trying to undercut other competitors/competition.
That is what capitalism was supposed to be, yet, here we are. I want what you say, but that is wishful thinking at this point. Unless some weird company or individual with unlimited funds decides at some point to do just that, which would make all other businesses rethink their ways because every client would be jumping ship, I honestly don’t see that happening in oír lifetime.