|
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.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
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. 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. Banning driverless trucks won't cost me money, because I am not the owner of a trucking company.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
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? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Because if you don't ban that research, then a self-driving vehicle that is objectively and clearly safer than human driven trucks will be developed. It's inevitable, because humans are pretty poo poo at driving on the whole and your self-driving vehicle doesn't have to be very good to do better than us. Insurance companies will despise you, and your law will be directly responsible for every death and injury caused by human truck driver error. Is it really inevitable? Robots are poo poo at not running into stuff. edit: that came across as a little snide, but I didn't mean it to. You just have a lot of faith in future robots, and I'm wondering where that's coming from
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:Right, inflation or cost of living or any other factor. Automation at least has a chance to reduce costs, at least in theory. Failing that it can keep costs stable or slow increases. At the expense of three million truck drivers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:Yes, and? How long will it takes for the savings from self driving trucks to offset making three million people unemployed? Paradoxish posted:I'm just really curious why you think jobs are more important than other social benefits. I'm not sure there are other social benefits
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:Well, it's happening, and yeah, we have to figure out what to do about it. Putting our heads in the sand doesn't help. Oh see, this is the point of my thread, what if we did something so it didn't happen? What if poo poo wasn't inevitable, and people could actually change stuff? I mean, I'm like 90% sure that self driving trucks aren't actually controlled by the tides If self driving trucks end up on the road, it's because people put them there. So we could stop that. And then three million people wouldn't be unemployed in order to further enrich the already rich.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Probably not that long in aggregate (the positives affect a whole lot more people than the negatives), but it takes zero time for subsidizing human truck drivers to start having negative effects. Not to even mention the people working on self-driving vehicles who would lose their jobs if you banned self-driving trucks. Assuming that trickle down economics is wrong, do the positives actually affect more people? And what is the number of people working on self driving trucks vs. the number of truck drivers, and how much easier would it be for the self driving truck guys to find new jobs vs. truck drivers?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:So the solution is to just stop technological advancement so millions of people can still be forced to work lovely jobs so the already rich can be further enriched. Right. Do you think truck drivers will be happy that they are no longer forced to be truck drivers, and are instead forced to be unemployed truck drivers?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:Why would they be forced to be unemployed? Well, they could always pull themselves up by their bootstraps. OwlFancier posted:Whether they are happy about it doesn't really signify, you can't resolve it by trying to legislate the problem out of existence. Couldn't you? Why wouldn't a law banning self driving trucks save the jobs of truck drivers?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:There's a legal definition of a truck for starters. Something that drove itself but was designed to be legally distinct from a truck and was relatively efficient compared to a human-driven truck would be invented and adopted by logistics companies if you banned self-driving trucks. Are you going to ban all self-driving locomotive vehicles in response? That's why I said the law would have to say commercial vehicles, not trucks. I'm one step ahead of you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Really really hope OP comes back soon because I can't wait either! I'm not an expert on telephone exchanges, but I think there's too many phone numbers now to do it like in the olde-timey sepia photographs with the ladies and the wires. I just don't think it's feasible
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:So what you're saying is we need to put a legal cap on how many phones there are No, that's stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Sorry to hear that you don't care about the people who lost their jobs you heartless monster. I'm pretty sure they're all dead by now
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:And one day all the truck drivers will be dead, so... Oh sure, but we experience time linearly. In the current present, some people are still alive. I know this won't win me any popularity contests, but I support polices to help the living, even though they will eventually also be dead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Listen, my great grandfather was a soda jerk. My grandmother was a soda jerk. Why are you trying to destroy my people's way of life by supporting these good for nothing vending machines that do nothing but take away jobs from my people!? This is my heritage. What? My thesis didn't involve vending machines machines. You would need a time machine to save soda jerks. What are you people talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
Anubis posted:So, what do you actually want to do then? We pretty much already have the technology figured out, it's just proving it works and fixing minor kinks at this point. Do you want to just start putting arbitrary "expiration" dates on jobs at this point? No, that's stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Anubis posted:Well you don't want them to be able to filter the automation in over 10-20 years like it normally would. You don't want a drop dead date, but you seem to understand on some level that it's idiotic to try and keep out of date jobs around after they can be automated because you still don't wanna cut existing automation to bring back lost jobs and increase employment. So, either your problem isn't actually with automation but rather with a perceived view of how society should look or it's a misplaced belief that workers should never have to retrain to a new industry. Yeah, your suggestion is stupid. My suggestion was just ban self driving trucks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Also stupid. Incase that hasn't been made clear. Forgive me for perhaps over simplifying here, but the criticisms of my idea seem to fall into three camps 1: You can't stand in the way of SCIENCE! *gif of Professor from Futurama shaking his fist* Which I'm not gonna bother responding to 2: All the jobs should be done by robots, most humans will just be unemployed and live off welfare like in the utopian comic series Judge Dredd. Which is kind of horrifying to see people unironically espouse. 3: The money saved by self driving trucks will spread to all corners of the economy, and everyone will benefit. Which seems optimistic to me, but might have something to it. I think #3 is a reasonable criticism of my scheme. As I said, I don't think self-driving trucks actually will be good for most people, I think most of the money saved will just get hoovered up by the already rich. But I dunno, I'm not an economist. if #3 is right, my idea is misguided. But I don't think anyone's actually demonstrated that it's stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Bates posted:Do you want to exclusively protect truckers or would you want to more generally ban automation to protect all job categories? As I said in the OP, just truckers boner confessor posted:you're forgetting about #4, your idea is nonsensical and unenforcable and wouldn't solve any problems and generally isn't worth serious consideration How is it unenforceable? And it'd certainly solve the problem of three million people losing their jobs because of driverless trucks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:Nobody has said that all jobs should be done by robots. There are jobs that would really benefit being automated though, and people could filter into jobs that are more beneficial to their local community and to society as a whole. Plus if automation was used to properly reduce living costs it would mean people would have to work less (but not everyone on welfare, just people working less) so they could focus on what's more important to them. Which may be work, I'm sure there would still be people who chose to work full weeks, but it's about giving people more choice. How are we going to find three million open jobs that pay as good or better than truck driver, and then retrain all the truck drivers to do them? Getting all the drivers into new jobs would be a massive undertaking, which I don't really see happening. I think they're gonna get fired, and the lucky ones will end up working at Wendys. I know that people have lost jobs to automation before, but I'm not sure why people keep bringing that up. That was in the past. We can't do anything about that. Truckers aren't more deserving than people in the past, but they are helpable now. I don't understand how banning driverless trucks isn't workable. It seems like it would be pretty easy to do. And I'm definitely getting the feeling that other people aren't interested in debating it. "can't be done, science marches on, man is ground inexorably beneath the wheels of progress" Lord Banana posted:Are you a trucker? Or someone in your family? I think people are genuinely confused here why you've decided the plight of the trucker is so important, compared to all the other changes caused by automation. it just seems like an easy problem to fix.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:While we're banning self-driving trucks, is there any reason we shouldn't also ban trucks with more than one trailer in order to create more truck driving jobs? I'm pretty sure there actually are already limits on what a truck can carry.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
I'm talking about truckers because it seems like a pretty simple fix. As I said in the OP, just pass a law saying something like, "all commercial vehicles on public roads must have a qualified operator on board". Boom, three million jobs saved, without much downside. Saving other jobs is more complicated, I bet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:For a start, care work. Seriously, it's a massively understaffed sector that's constantly recruiting. Massively understaffed to the tune of three million good paying positions open right now? And even if it is, how are we gonna retrain all the truckers to do it? Lord Banana posted:In the long term, moving society away from being so work dependent and giving people a lot more personal freedom to follow their own interests instead of giving away most of their lives to people who don't give a poo poo about them. OwlFancier posted:Your rationale still rests on the idea that people working for money is a moral good. OK, massively reshape society, great(don't get me wrong, all you GMI people are picturing Star Trek, but it's gonna be Judge Dredd and you know it.) but for now, before the massive society reshaping, why don't we go ahead and ban self driving trucks and save those jobs? Then we can undo the ban after we've got that robot powered utopia where work is unnecessary and everybody spends their days happily contemplating flowers?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Lord Banana posted:but why should we not be working towards a future where people don't have to drive for hours to put food in their children's mouths? How is letting three million people lose their job working towards that? Are just arguing for accelerationism? When tons of people are out of work, someone will come up with a scheme where people don't have to work, and then everyone will agree on that and it will happen? What if it doesn't work like that? There are a lot of countries with much higher unemployment rates than the US, and I don't think any of them are closer to a work-free future. OwlFancier posted:"If you think this thing is bad then why don't you support laws that perpetuate it and then we can work on getting rid of it!" Come up with the work-free way or organizing society, popularize it, get everybody agree to vote in the no more work plan, and then have people not work, yeah. Because we live in an existing society with real people right now, and if driverless trucks become a thing, a whole lot of people are going to lose their jobs in a society where their survival depends on having a job.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
Rodatose posted:The op keeps saying why don't we ban self driving trucks. Who is "we"? Who is the group that will be willing to enact a legislation on truckers' behalf? I think Congress is the organization that passes laws in the US.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 19:15
|
|