Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo
A bunch of companies are trying to make self-driving trucks, trucks that drive themselves. If they pull it off, millions of truck drivers in America will lose their jobs. So why not just ban them? The government can make restrictions about what kinds of vehicles use public roads, so why not just pass a bill saying that commercial vehicles must be controlled by an on-board human when using a public road? Or whatever, I'm not a law language expert, you get my point.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Enigma89
Jan 2, 2007

by CVG
I wonder what candle workers did after the lighbulb came out.

Doorknob Slobber
Sep 10, 2006

by Fluffdaddy
we should just ban science it keeps steeling ar jerbs

Personally I think the problem is less that science things are making jobs go away and more than when those jobs go away society isn't ready with alternatives and security nets that make sure those truck drivers, steel workers, auto workers, or whatever can continue to live the life they're accustomed to.

Doorknob Slobber fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Dec 6, 2016

Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo

Enigma89 posted:

I wonder what candle workers did after the lighbulb came out.

Doorknob Slobber posted:

we should just ban science

So you guys' position is that no new technology should be banned for any reason.

emdash
Oct 19, 2003

and?
entrenched capital, OP

Doorknob Slobber
Sep 10, 2006

by Fluffdaddy

Guy Goodbody posted:

So you guys' position is that no new technology should be banned for any reason.

We shouldn't ban science things because some people might lose their jobs because we should move past a society where people have to work in unnecessary professions just to eat and have a place to call their own.

Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo

Doorknob Slobber posted:

We shouldn't ban science things because some people might lose their jobs because we should move past a society where people have to work in unnecessary professions just to eat and have a place to call their own.

Full automation, 90% unemployment, guaranteed minimum income. The world of Judge Dredd.

sitchensis
Mar 4, 2009

If automated trucks make shipping cheaper, then we will get automated trucks. Moreover, truck drivers don't donate to political parties and robots don't need wages :capitalism:

Enigma89
Jan 2, 2007

by CVG

Guy Goodbody posted:

So you guys' position is that no new technology should be banned for any reason.

Lowtax bankrupted all of the poor telegram workers!

Paradoxish
Dec 19, 2003

Will you stop going crazy in there?

Guy Goodbody posted:

So you guys' position is that no new technology should be banned for any reason.

It's more that suggestions like this call into question the fundamental nature of work and why we value it. Isn't the whole point of a job that there's some work that needs to be done and the best way to do it is to employ human labor? If trucks (or anything else) can be automated to be cheaper and more efficient then that's some labor that no longer needs doing. Creating valueless labor purely for the sake of jobs is just a form of extremely inefficient welfare.

As a side note, I don't think long haul truck drivers are going anywhere anytime soon, but it's probably a career that'll be stone cold dead in two or three decades.

Malcolm XML
Aug 8, 2009

I always knew it would end like this.
long haul truckering is gonna be replaced w/ piloting trucks like they do for big ships going in to ports: u pay a local expert a fuckton of money to ease your giant ship in for the last mile but its cheaper than paying him to sit on his rear end for 95% of the trip

INH5
Dec 17, 2012
Error: file not found.
Every single self-driving truck that has been tested has had a human driver who can take over if there's a problem with the autopilot. That's because laws do currently require vehicles to have a driver, and the laws would have to be specifically changed for that to be possible.

Personally, I don't think a law change of that sort is particularly likely. At the beginning and end of a trip, trucks have to leave the highway and drive on city streets that are a lot less predictable, and current car autopilot systems still have trouble there. But more importantly, until privately owned battle droids become a thing, only a human can protect a truck's cargo from thieves and hijackers.

That being said, a lot of the people currently working as truckers probably will lose their jobs, since babysitting a self-driving truck requires less skill and so can be done by people willing to work for less. Sucks for them, but there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

On the bright side, this technology will probably be good for people working in roadside restaurants, tourist traps, and so on because once highway autopilot becomes a common feature in cars as well as trucks, road trips will become much less of a hassle and therefore more common.

Harold Fjord
Jan 3, 2004

Guy Goodbody posted:

Full automation, 90% unemployment, guaranteed minimum income. The world of Judge Dredd.

You are right, we'll need to fund the arts.

Doorknob Slobber
Sep 10, 2006

by Fluffdaddy

INH5 posted:

On the bright side, this technology will probably be good for people working in roadside restaurants, tourist traps, and so on because once highway autopilot becomes a common feature in cars as well as trucks, road trips will become much less of a hassle and therefore more common.

But then we'll need to ban automated fast food and automated gas stations oh dear

OtherworldlyInvader
Feb 10, 2005

The X-COM project did not deliver the universe's ultimate cup of coffee. You have failed to save the Earth.


INH5 posted:

But more importantly, until privately owned battle droids become a thing, only a human can protect a truck's cargo from thieves and hijackers.

Hahahah what? Do you seriously think its part of a Walmart truck driver's contract to engage in mortal combat to save an insured trailer full of Vizio TVs? Do you have any idea what kind of legal liabilities there are for employees playing batman?

babies havin rabies
Feb 24, 2006

For laborers replaced by automation, the easiest sensible long-term solution is to provide free (or very low-cost) vocational training or higher education in order to move those workers into a higher degree of specialization.

INH5
Dec 17, 2012
Error: file not found.

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

Hahahah what? Do you seriously think its part of a Walmart truck driver's contract to engage in mortal combat to save an insured trailer full of Vizio TVs? Do you have any idea what kind of legal liabilities there are for employees playing batman?

No, but they can report the theft to the police. It's a lot harder for robotrucks to do that, at least in a way that doesn't lead to a bunch of false positives.

OtherworldlyInvader
Feb 10, 2005

The X-COM project did not deliver the universe's ultimate cup of coffee. You have failed to save the Earth.


INH5 posted:

No, but they can report the theft to the police. It's a lot harder for robotrucks to do that, at least in a way that doesn't lead to a bunch of false positives.

GPS, mobile data, door sensors, weight sensors, video cameras, physical locks & seals, ect make it easy as hell to solve all those problems. They already don't trust the driver, because trusting a high school educated driver to transport alone a truck full of goods worth more than their yearly salary is a recipe for theft. This is why containers are sealed, and goods inventoried prior to being sent out and after being received.

James Garfield
May 5, 2012
Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!
Subsidizing companies to hire truck drivers instead of using self driving trucks would be idiotic for obvious reasons, if you're going to do that just give the money directly to the truck drivers.

Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo

babies havin rabies posted:

For laborers replaced by automation, the easiest sensible long-term solution is to provide free (or very low-cost) vocational training or higher education in order to move those workers into a higher degree of specialization.

It seems easier to me to prevent them from being replaced in the first place, at least in the case of truck drivers.

James Garfield posted:

Subsidizing companies to hire truck drivers instead of using self driving trucks would be idiotic for obvious reasons, if you're going to do that just give the money directly to the truck drivers.

Who said anything about subsidizing? Just ban driverless trucks. No subsidies required.

tsa
Feb 3, 2014

Guy Goodbody posted:

It seems easier to me to prevent them from being replaced in the first place, at least in the case of truck drivers.


Who said anything about subsidizing? Just ban driverless trucks. No subsidies required.

You're kinda fuckin' stupid, ain't ya?

Crabtree
Oct 17, 2012

ARRRGH! Get that wallet out!
Everybody: Lowtax in a Pickle!
Pickle! Pickle! Pickle! Pickle!

Dinosaur Gum
How will you ban something that the Chinese or any other country is free to make and release anyway? Outlaw the technology completely from civilian purchase? Will that include GPS or automatic braking development? Why should I care about Truckers?

INH5
Dec 17, 2012
Error: file not found.

OtherworldlyInvader posted:

GPS, mobile data, door sensors, weight sensors, video cameras, physical locks & seals, ect make it easy as hell to solve all those problems. They already don't trust the driver, because trusting a high school educated driver to transport alone a truck full of goods worth more than their yearly salary is a recipe for theft. This is why containers are sealed, and goods inventoried prior to being sent out and after being received.

If those security systems are so good, why do they worry about the drivers stealing stuff?

And home security systems don't exactly have a shining track record.

Guy Goodbody posted:

Who said anything about subsidizing? Just ban driverless trucks. No subsidies required.

You'd still need to spend money to enforce the law.

Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo

Crabtree posted:

How will you ban something that the Chinese or any other country is free to make and release anyway? Outlaw the technology completely from civilian purchase? Will that include GPS or automatic braking development? Why should I care about Truckers?

You could pass a law that says that any commercial vehicle on a public road must be operated by a human on board that vehicle. I think that would work, but as I said in the OP, I'm not an expert on legal language

INH5 posted:

You'd still need to spend money to enforce the law.

Holy poo poo you're right. We'd have to create some kind of organization with authority to look at vehicles on the road and determine if they are in violation of the law. That's gonna be expensive, it's a shame no such organization already exists.

OwlFancier
Aug 22, 2013

Guy Goodbody posted:

A bunch of companies are trying to make self-driving trucks, trucks that drive themselves. If they pull it off, millions of truck drivers in America will lose their jobs. So why not just ban them? The government can make restrictions about what kinds of vehicles use public roads, so why not just pass a bill saying that commercial vehicles must be controlled by an on-board human when using a public road? Or whatever, I'm not a law language expert, you get my point.

You could, or you could mandate that the ROI of automation be paid in tax to the state and then use that to fund retraining/pensions for truckers.

Basically banning automation because you want humans to waste their time doing tasks that can be better automated is stupid compared to ensuring that the returns from capital investment are distributed to all of society. The desired goal should be to automate as much as possible so that people don't have to work dumb jobs in order to live.

Crabtree
Oct 17, 2012

ARRRGH! Get that wallet out!
Everybody: Lowtax in a Pickle!
Pickle! Pickle! Pickle! Pickle!

Dinosaur Gum

Guy Goodbody posted:

You could pass a law that says that any commercial vehicle on a public road must be operated by a human on board that vehicle. I think that would work, but as I said in the OP, I'm not an expert on legal language.

That doesn't mean it has to be driven, that just requires one passenger. So the intern is given the weekend to ride in the truck back and forth. How does that help the Trucker that needs the job, particularly when a Uber style intern can be payed less? You are starting to sound like an enemy of Free Enterprise.

James Garfield
May 5, 2012
Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Guy Goodbody posted:

Who said anything about subsidizing? Just ban driverless trucks. No subsidies required.

Banning driverless trucks is just an even less efficient version of a subsidy.

If banning driverless trucks wouldn't cost you money, you wouldn't need to ban them.


(edit assuming you're serious)
Should the government also ban/penalize energy sources other than coal, in order to make sure coal miners keep their jobs?

Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo

OwlFancier posted:

You could, or you could mandate that the ROI of automation be paid in tax to the state and then use that to fund retraining/pensions for truckers.

Basically banning automation because you want humans to waste their time doing tasks that can be better automated is stupid compared to ensuring that the returns from capital investment are distributed to all of society. The desired goal should be to automate as much as possible so that people don't have to work dumb jobs in order to live.

OK, but what if driverless trucks happen, but then all the extra money companies make isn't taken up by taxes, and then there's just a bunch of people out of work and the truck company CEOs have more money? That seems a lot more likely to me than we just tax all the truck companies so much we can pay the truck drivers their wages while they just sit at home

Crabtree posted:

That doesn't mean it has to be driven, that just requires one passenger. So the intern is given the weekend to ride in the truck back and forth. How does that help the Trucker that needs the job, particularly when a Uber style intern can be payed less? You are starting to sound like an enemy of Free Enterprise.

I am absolutely an enemy of free enterprise. And it would still require a truck driver, not an intern, because the intern doesn't have truck driving qualifications.

James Garfield posted:

Banning driverless trucks is just an even less efficient version of a subsidy.

If banning driverless trucks wouldn't cost you money, you wouldn't need to ban them.

Banning driverless trucks won't cost me money, because I am not the owner of a trucking company.

James Garfield
May 5, 2012
Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Guy Goodbody posted:

Banning driverless trucks won't cost me money, because I am not the owner of a trucking company.

It costs the government money you dummy

Polygynous
Dec 13, 2006
welp

Guy Goodbody posted:

Banning driverless trucks won't cost me money, because I am not the owner of a trucking company.

I too buy nothing that has been shipped by truck.

Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo

Polygynous posted:

I too buy nothing that has been shipped by truck.

Are you suggesting that the savings will be passed on to the consumer? Has that ever happened? Because the Target near me put in self-checkout aisles and I'm pretty sure that didn't coincide with an across-the-board price drop.

Crabtree
Oct 17, 2012

ARRRGH! Get that wallet out!
Everybody: Lowtax in a Pickle!
Pickle! Pickle! Pickle! Pickle!

Dinosaur Gum

Guy Goodbody posted:

I am absolutely an enemy of free enterprise. And it would still require a truck driver, not an intern, because the intern doesn't have truck driving qualifications.

Your not functional law didn't require driving of the human in the truck and if the truck can drive itself, the passenger doesn't need to be able to drive it. You're asking for a slew of laws to keep self-driving trucks when there isn't anything in place to care about self-driving anything in a car. This is Trump's America, son. If companies can save more money by just maintaining a crew of disposable riders, mechanics and technicians than keeping an uppity trucker union that could strike if they can't buy their dumb kid presents with their pay, who do you think the coming government is going to care more about?

What do you care more about here? Truckers or Automation?

James Garfield
May 5, 2012
Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!
Anyway I wonder what the OP thinks about banning automatic telephone exchanges to :siren: create switchboard operator jobs :siren:

Polygynous
Dec 13, 2006
welp

Guy Goodbody posted:

Are you suggesting that the savings will be passed on to the consumer? Has that ever happened? Because the Target near me put in self-checkout aisles and I'm pretty sure that didn't coincide with an across-the-board price drop.

If you're forcing the use of actual drivers for reasons you're going to be paying for it one way or another and that cost is only going to go up.

Freakazoid_
Jul 5, 2013


Buglord
The power of the job cannot be underestimated. America practically worships the job. It defines who you are and what your worth is, so much so that we ascribe social darwinism to it. We saw the rust belt come out of almost nowhere to support trump just because they want their old jobs back.

It's entirely possible we may see some sort of semi-luddite movement spring up to "save" trucking and other jobs from automation, but chances are it will be an incomplete and vague list of which jobs should stay. Implementing a GMI is an expensive sell already, but the concept of working poor being given a comfortable life is the bigger hurtle. Only those who earned it (the rich) may live a comfortable life without working, the rest must toil, even if it means to your last days on earth.

Paradoxish
Dec 19, 2003

Will you stop going crazy in there?

Guy Goodbody posted:

OK, but what if driverless trucks happen, but then all the extra money companies make isn't taken up by taxes, and then there's just a bunch of people out of work and the truck company CEOs have more money? That seems a lot more likely to me than we just tax all the truck companies so much we can pay the truck drivers their wages while they just sit at home

Okay, so why are you worried specifically about trucks and not about other forms of automation? How far do we go to stop driverless trucks from happening? Do we ban all research into self-driving vehicles? Why aren't you worried about the jobs of engineers and researchers in the vehicle automation field? And if you don't ban the research, what happens when someone develops a self-driving technology that is obviously superior to human drivers in terms of safety and efficiency?

Nothing you're saying here makes any sense. If you're that worried about truck drivers, just give them money or some form of vocational training or education. If you desperately just want them to have jobs through policy, then you might as well just mandate that all self-driving vehicles have a human sitting in the cab forever, because at least then we can reap the societal benefits of vehicles that are more efficient and safer. There's no good argument for having a human do something that can be done better and more safely by a computer.

Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo

Crabtree posted:

Your not functional law didn't require driving of the human in the truck and if the truck can drive itself, the passenger doesn't need to be able to drive it. You're asking for a slew of laws to keep self-driving trucks when there isn't anything in place to care about self-driving anything in a car.

OK, so the law would have to say something like "any commercial vehicle using a public road must have a fully qualified operator on board" I think that would do it. And I don't care about self driving cars because that's outside the purview of the thread.

Polygynous posted:

If you're forcing the use of actual drivers for reasons you're going to be paying for it one way or another and that cost is only going to go up.

Why is that cost only going to go up? Well, all costs are going to go up because of inflation, but why would the cost of truck drivers specifically be going up in a big way?

INH5
Dec 17, 2012
Error: file not found.

Guy Goodbody posted:

Are you suggesting that the savings will be passed on to the consumer? Has that ever happened?

If it never happened, every company on Earth would have a 1000% profit rate by now.

Guy Goodbody
Aug 31, 2016

by Nyc_Tattoo

Paradoxish posted:

Okay, so why are you worried specifically about trucks and not about other forms of automation? How far do we go to stop driverless trucks from happening? Do we ban all research into self-driving vehicles? Why aren't you worried about the jobs of engineers and researchers in the vehicle automation field? And if you don't ban the research, what happens when someone develops a self-driving technology that is obviously superior to human drivers in terms of safety and efficiency?

Nothing you're saying here makes any sense. If you're that worried about truck drivers, just give them money or some form of vocational training or education. If you desperately just want them to have jobs through policy, then you might as well just mandate that all self-driving vehicles have a human sitting in the cab forever, because at least then we can reap the societal benefits of vehicles that are more efficient and safer. There's no good argument for having a human do something that can be done better and more safely by a computer.

Other forms of automation are complicated, I don't know if the government has the ability to ban other stuff. But driverless trucks seems like an easy fix. You wouldn't have to ban all research into anything, I don't know why you'd think that. Just ban the use of driverless trucks on public roads.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

James Garfield
May 5, 2012
Am I a manipulative abuser in real life, or do I just roleplay one on the Internet for fun? You decide!

Guy Goodbody posted:

Are you suggesting that the savings will be passed on to the consumer? Has that ever happened?

You're posting that from a computer that you, presumably, bought with your own money.

  • Locked thread