Submitted by idapitbwidiuatabip t3_y88rue in Futurology
Comments
kmo9e t1_iszv6v9 wrote
The trucks can hardly do much worse.
DrLongIsland t1_it03dgf wrote
At the very least, it won't pull out a gun on you if it thinks you cut it off. (looks at a terminator poster). Yet.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_isymesl wrote
The technology is here. Trucks can drive themselves. Companies like IKEA are already doing trials, and when they have the data that proves how much money/liability/time they're saving, it won't be long before they are adopted as the norm company-wide.
On the robotics side, companies like Kodiak who make the self-driving trucks will have their IKEA data to help them sell directly to other companies, without any need for 'trial periods.'
Then once other businesses start to get the Fear of Missing Out, adoption will skyrocket. We so desperately need UBI before this massive transition happens.
TheGrayBox t1_iszt138 wrote
It’s probably worth mentioning that current driverless trucks are not human-less, and generally require humans to do the non-highway portion or at least navigate loading docks (anyone who has ever driven through a busy loading dock probably understands why). Until every single building with a loading dock in the world drastically changes their infrastructure to have complex systems in place, that will continue to be true for a long time.
UnpopularCrayon t1_it0f1r5 wrote
I expect many companies will have the equivalent of tugs to pull the trailers around the loading docks. Autonomous trucks might just dump the trailer at the entrance. I have no idea how practical that idea is.
PunisherASM129 t1_it1t2p5 wrote
90% of the current staffing at transport companies will be gone in a few years, and all the whistling in the world won't change that. The "labor shortage" was interesting while it lasted, but it is gone and never to return.
TheGrayBox t1_it2bg8q wrote
And you know this purely based on your own feelings, or you actually work in logistics?
Odd_Analyst_8905 t1_it2rtlx wrote
Entire countries are bracing for this change. China is years ahead preparing their labor force.
In America 96% of truckers refused ANY RETRAINING AT ALL. which covered their companies asses. Companies like free money
TheGrayBox t1_it2sea3 wrote
Sure, a change is coming. The nature of that change is probably different from what you and others are thinking.
PunisherASM129 t1_it7085g wrote
In other words, you don't know shit about logistics and have a burning desire to let everyone know that?
[deleted] t1_it7a6xe wrote
[removed]
Odd_Analyst_8905 t1_it7r5ee wrote
So you don’t say shit. Because that would mean something. That’s man behavior. To make a statement you support. And stand by it.
But you got that other thing. That little kid thing. That snot on his lip all the time-telling adults how to do everything-thing. If I never stand for anything I never risk being wrong thing.
People you’re attracted to will find it an attractive personality trait I assure you. Keep it up. Lots of respect coming out way in life.
TheGrayBox t1_it8im9h wrote
I literally already stated exactly what I meant, it’s the parent comment you replied to. Autonomous trucking is not human-agnostic, it utilizes telemetry instrumentation to automate the highway portion of the drive, which for much of the country means the majority of logistics becomes automated. But people should remember that trucks also deliver to dense urban cores, and navigate city streets and often deliver to warehouses that aren’t owned by massive multi-national corporations with the ability to just modernize on the fly. Most warehouses are fairly hectic places.
The most likely outcome is that long-haul OTR trucking becomes largely automated, with a human or tug that navigates the first and last portions of the drive and parking. But the delivered goods will then still likely be delivered by all manor of human driven day cabs and box trucks, because that is what makes logical sense for navigating delivery to individual destination sites.
It never ceases to amaze me how people actually get legitimately angry and cagey whenever someone suggests that some form of innovation has nuance and isn’t exactly to the degree that r/Futurology wants you think, as if I’m personally trying to hold the world back or something. Lol.
But go off I guess 😅🥴
Odd_Analyst_8905 t1_ita58r6 wrote
No no.. what you’re describing is exactly what I’m talking about. The same thing. I’m just concerned with the communities affected by the exact changes you’re describing.
We agree with how it’s going to roll out. I’m just pointing out it’s going to completely fuck entire populations in America. Places people make a living on the road and come home to a rural life. Doesn’t work if you have to work at the hub.
We’re taking about taking away $55,000 a year jobs from towns where that is good and moving them to cities where they are not. That concerns me because of burger shops in small towns that need that income. It isn’t just magical numbers in a big pot. They are real communities in America, there are many many many of them, and the single way any family makes any money in the entire town us about to be replaced in a few years.
It’s happened to communities before and it’s very ugly. I would like better for Americans. I would like us to prepare with wisdom.
Autonomous trucking is robot irrelevance-atoll. profit driven Americans will step on living children and drown cities for money if we let them. They have proven it countless times. They will kill whole towns for cheaper shipping and we will watch as if we were helpless. We aren’t helpless. We are just finding arguments for not doing anything. Justifying being well payed and satisfied while it happens to other communities.
AftyOfTheUK t1_isyqo3p wrote
Like with any automation it will take years - probably decades - for enough equipment to be manufactured to put even 80% of human drivers out of work.
New trucks and complex conversion kits for existing trucks don't just get made in their hundreds of thousands overnight. In addition, many trucks will be too old to be compatible with conversion kits.
Ultimately, there will be a long, slow decline of human drivers during which we can retrain them to other professions. I do support UBI, and adult retraining credits, but this idea that any new technology is a sudden emergency for humanity is just alarmist.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_isyrn4x wrote
Poverty is an emergency and we're in it.
We should be alarmed. People are having trouble keeping a roof over their head and food in their stomachs.
Invoking automation is simply one argument for UBI. But the biggest argument for UBI is our current socioeconomic collapse.
AftyOfTheUK t1_isyv7qu wrote
>Poverty is an emergency
Poverty is not an emergency. It's always been around, it always will be around. What constitutes poverty changes over time.
Someone in poverty in the UK today has far more goods, diverse foods, communications, a better home, access to better services and better healthcare and better education than someone who was well above the poverty line a couple of generations ago.
>But the biggest argument for UBI is our current socioeconomic collapse.
I'm not sure who "our" is in your sentence, but "we" in the countries I've lived in (the UK and the US and France) seem to have some pretty insane quality of life for most people undergoing a socioeconomic collapse!
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_isyw610 wrote
> Poverty is not an emergency.
Of course it is. Homelessness is on the rise in America
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/15/briefing/homelessness-america-housing-crisis.html
> It's always been around, it always will be around.
We've been slashing poverty for 200 years. We can eliminate it altogether and suggesting otherwise is mindlessly defeatist.
> What constitutes poverty changes over time.
No, basic physiological & safety needs have remained the same.
> Someone in poverty in the UK today has far more goods, diverse foods, communications, a better home, access to better services and better healthcare and better education than someone who was well above the poverty line a couple of generations ago.
Not the case in America. I can't speak on the UK, but there's an awful lot of people there complaining about cost of living. So...can you explain that?
> I'm not sure who "our" is in your sentence, but "we" in the countries I've lived in (the UK and the US and France) seem to have some pretty insane quality of life for people undergoing a socioeconomic collapse!
If you think that the UK and France are comparable to the US, you're proving how little you know about these nations.
By countless measurable metrics, America is undergoing socioeconomic collapse.
Look at our labor force participation rate.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
Look at our total capacity utilization
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TCU
Look at our life expectancy, our suicide rates, our homelessness rates, etc.
Ignoring the problems doesn't mean they aren't there.
divat10 t1_isyxm1y wrote
why can't we compate UK and france to the US?
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_isyy8n3 wrote
We can compare them.
But they are not comparable in the sense that all have more or less equal standards of living. The standard of living in the US is unequivocally the worst of the three.
The US has no universal healthcare, no free public college, and no strong labor movement. In fact, the US is in the grips of a destructive duopoly that's been weakening the economic stability & mobility of ordinary Americans for over half a century.
The UK, on the other hand, has the NHS. Nobody in the UK is going bankrupt or losing their homes because of medical bills, or forgoing food to afford their prescriptions.
In France, things are even more stable. They've got both universal healthcare and free college. Not to mention an incredibly robust labor movement that isn't afraid to strike and do so with gusto.
Comparing these nations reveals the stark reality that citizens in America have it tangibly worse, and are commoditized in many more ways. Americans have to pay for things that Brits and French people receive as services.
AftyOfTheUK t1_iszovwp wrote
>But they are not comparable in the sense that all have more or less equal standards of living. The standard of living in the US is unequivocally the worst of the three.
What the in the absolute fuck are you talking about. For whom?
I live in the US. I have lived in the UK. I have lived in France. The best quality of life for most people is definitely in the US, especially for those with a decent job.
>The UK, on the other hand, has the NHS.
Holy shit dude. Ever lived there? I moved to the US, and I prefer the healthcare here. Yes it's expensive, but at least I actually get some. Unlike on the NHS.
The NHS is great for emergencies and huge events, and absolutely terrible for anything else.
>Comparing these nations reveals the stark reality that citizens in America have it tangibly worse
How the fuck do you get there? Land and homes are cheaper, median wages are 20% or more high, taxes are lower. Healthcare expenditure is about the ONLY metric by which the US is worse for most people.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_iszq6ug wrote
> What the in the absolute fuck are you talking about. For whom?
https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=BLI
> I live in the US. I have lived in the UK. I have lived in France. The best quality of life for most people is definitely in the US, especially for those with a decent job.
That's false. The data proves your wrong. Your lived experience doesn't refute measurable metrics of the wellbeing of a society.
> Holy shit dude. Ever lived there? I moved to the US, and I prefer the healthcare here. Yes it's expensive, but at least I actually get some. Unlike on the NHS.
Again, the data proves otherwise.
> How the fuck do you get there? Land and homes are cheaper, median wages are 20% or more high, taxes are lower. Healthcare expenditure is about the ONLY metric by which the US is worse for most people.
Nah, check the OECD rankings.
You clearly didn't live in the UK or France for very long. Military?
AftyOfTheUK t1_isztbv7 wrote
>You clearly didn't live in the UK or France for very long. Military?
I lived in the UK for 40 years. France for a little under 1 year. Now 3 years here in the US.
The "data" proves me wrong, huh? I posted earlier some metrics for you. Median income, 20% higher (massively moreso with recent changes to the US/UK exchange rate). Cost of housing lower. Cost of cars, lower. Gas - half price. Taxes - lower. Sales taxes - lower, and sometimes don't exist.
The list goes on and on. If you have a decent job, the US is a far better place to live than the UK.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_iszuc0d wrote
> I lived in the UK for 40 years. France for a little under 1 year. Now 3 years here in the US.
So you don't have enough experience with either France or the US.
> The "data" proves me wrong, huh?
Yeah. I've linked you to the data. Here's some more.
> I posted earlier some metrics for you. Median income, 20% higher (massively moreso with recent changes to the US/UK exchange rate). Cost of housing lower. Cost of cars, lower. Gas - half price. Taxes - lower. Sales taxes - lower, and sometimes don't exist.
[Citation needed]
> The list goes on and on. If you have a decent job, the US is a far better place to live than the UK.
That's a big fucking IF seeing as there are scant few decent jobs. See my earlier link to America's labor force participation rate.
Also, there's the fact that most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Well over half. In the UK, only about a third of workers do.
AftyOfTheUK t1_it0apd4 wrote
>So you don't have enough experience with either France or the US.
How much experience do I need? The healthcare and particularly dentistry that I get here in Northern California is light years ahead of what I got in the UK. How many years do I need to be here before I've experienced enough of the health system for your needs?
I still say the NHS is fantastic for emergencies and life threatening conditions, but useless for anythign else.
>[Citation needed]
Seriously? You weren't aware that the median income in the US is 67.5k USD [1] and in the UK is 31.5k GBP? [2] You need a citation for that? Seriously? Do you need a citation to do the math and realize that income, normalized for currency, is around double that in the US that it is in the UK?
What kind of citations do you need to understand the tax rate differences? That the effective tax rate on 67.5k is only a little higher in the US than it is in the UK on an income less than half that of the US? [3] [4]
Do you need a citation for gas prices being almost double, too? [5]
How about citations for sales tax being less than half (and often infinitely less) than in the UK? [6] [7]
Do you need a citation showing that the average home size in the US is way more than DOUBLE the average home size in the UK, despite costing around the same? [8] [9]
​
>That's a big fucking IF seeing as there are scant few decent jobs.
What the fuck are you talking about? The median person in the US earns around double the median person in the UK. There are literally tens and tens of millions of good jobs. Clearly, obviously, based on them all paying so well.
You needed me to give you citations for headline figures that are readily available. Things that literally ANYONE with any knowledge of these two countries knows without needing to look it up.
You appear to have no first-hand knowledge, no awareness of the differences, and are just attempting to put the US down while failing to understand that the real data points to the opposite of your conclusions.
​
[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2021#:~:text=Median%20household%20disposable%20income%20in,(ONS%20Household%20Finances%20Survey.
[3] https://smartasset.com/taxes/income-taxes#FoQE9iKTft
[4] https://www.thesalarycalculator.co.uk/salary.php
[5] https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/
[6] https://www.gov.uk/vat-rates
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it0fwmp wrote
> How much experience do I need? The healthcare and particularly dentistry that I get here in Northern California is light years ahead of what I got in the UK.
Cool beans. Doesn't change the fact that by objective measurements, the US healthcare system is more expensive and has less desirable outcomes.
Also, you know, millions falling into poverty because of medical costs. That alone puts America's healthcare system far below the UK's.
> Seriously?
I'm glad you found some sources, but your cherry picked bits of data don't refute the more comprehensive scope of my data.
I've proven that economic mobility in America has all but disappeared. The most recent CBO report proves that beyond a doubt.
The facts pertaining to the various healthcare systems also cannot be disputed. America's healthcare system costs more, but our healthcare outcomes are worse and the financial toll it takes on people is far and beyond anything else experienced by anyone else in the world.
Even developing nations have universal healthcare.
> What the fuck are you talking about? The median person in the US earns around double the median person in the UK.
Now calculate it without the top 10%. Even just the top 1% majorly skews things.
> There are literally tens and tens of millions of good jobs. Clearly, obviously, based on them all paying so well.
Then why do most Americans live paycheck to paycheck?
> You needed me to give you citations for headline figures that are readily available.
Because I was hoping you'd come to the realization that headline figures don't ever tell the whole story (which is typical of headlines).
You didn't come to that realization, sadly. A bit too thick, I guess.
> You appear to have no first-hand knowledge,
I've actually lived in Europe for over 10 years and in America for over 10 years so my lived experience is much more reliable than yours.
But I don't invoke it because the data proves my point, and outweighs both of our lived experiences.
AftyOfTheUK t1_it0loz3 wrote
>Cool beans. Doesn't change the fact that by objective measurements, the US healthcare system is more expensive and has less desirable outcomes.
It is more expensive (that's not always a bad thing, having costs makes things better prioritized, though it's TOO much more expensive) but on outcomes...
It's worth noting that "has less desirable outcomes" mostly comes from stats related to healthcare for the entire population. This means it includes lots of people who don't have health insurance, the homeless etc. This skews the data pretty violently - if you take the subset that have jobs and decent health insurance, you'll find the numbers suddenly look a whole lot better.
>I'm glad you found some sources, but your cherry picked bits of data don't refute the more comprehensive scope of my data.
Wow. Just wow. Which of my data was "cherry-picked" exactly? National medians and averages? How exactly COULD I have cherry picked any of them?
>I've proven that economic mobility in America has all but disappeared.
Tell that to the guy I hired to bring his team to build fencing recently. He immigrated to the US just 15 years ago, spoke almost no English, knew how to weld, but worked his first year in fast food. Since then he got a job welding, then in auto repair, took over the shop, now has a welding company, an auto shop, and about fifteen mostly full time guys doing concrete, welding, fencing etc. He seems to have done fine with NO money, qualifications, contacts and just one vaguely marketable skill.
Just because lots of people are failing doesn't mean it's difficult.
>Now calculate it without the top 10%.
Oh. My. Lord. HOW DUMB ARE YOU? I gave you the MEDIAN figures.
Do you know what median means? Seriously, I'm not debating this with you. I gave you your sources you wanted, and you don't even have the reading/math comprehension of a 14 year old to understand it when the data is distilled down to the most simple presentation possible.
THE MEDIAN INCOME IS THE INCOME OF THE MOST ORDINARY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY.
I'm not going to debate with a mental midget, good day to you, sir.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it39ysf wrote
> This means it includes lots of people who don't have health insurance, the homeless etc.
Which is a flaw in our healthcare system lol
> This skews the data pretty violently -
No, it proves my point that America's healthcare system is in shambles.
> if you take the subset that have jobs and decent health insurance, you'll find the numbers suddenly look a whole lot better.
That's called cherry picking. We're talking about public health. America ranks the lowest out of the three nations we've discussed.
> Wow. Just wow. Which of my data was "cherry-picked" exactly? National medians and averages? How exactly COULD I have cherry picked any of them?
All of it. You chose headline figures that obscure the truth. Just like the headline unemployment rate obscures the fact that our labor force participation rate hasn't ever recovered from 2008.
> Tell that to the guy I hired to bring his team to build fencing recently. He immigrated to the US just 15 years ago,
15 years ago, things were different.
Just like 30 years ago, he would've had even more opportunity.
The data doesn't lie. I've given you links to the hard data proving that the poorest in America work, but don't increase their wealth and can't reliably move from one quintile of wealth to the next.
> Just because lots of people are failing doesn't mean it's difficult.
The data proves that it's much harder today. It gets harder every year that wages continue to remain disconnected from the cost of living, and they detached quite some time ago.
> Oh. My. Lord. HOW DUMB ARE YOU? I gave you the MEDIAN figures.
And they include the highest earners.
> Do you know what median means?
Are you asking me because you don't know?
> Seriously, I'm not debating this with you. I gave you your sources you wanted, and you don't even have the reading/math comprehension of a 14 year old to understand it when the data is distilled down to the most simple presentation possible.
Says the guy ignoring all of the hard data and graphs.
You linked me to landing pages. You have no hard data and it's obvious.
> THE MEDIAN INCOME IS THE INCOME OF THE MOST ORDINARY PERSON IN THE COUNTRY.
And $67.5k isn't enough to live on. That's why most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Over 2x as many Americans do compared to Brits.
Yet you try to feebly argue that America's economy is better off, that American workers have more stability. Even though twice as many of them live hand to mouth compared to Brits.
You have no logical argument. You're utterly limited by your lived experiences and seem incapable of looking at hard data and processing it.
AftyOfTheUK t1_it3eolv wrote
Like I said, not debating with a mental midget. Doubling down on your positions while offering nothing new is not the mark of a good debater. You still don't understand what median means. LOL
>And $67.5k isn't enough to live on. That's why most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Over 2x as many Americans do compared to Brits.
LOL, you're a fool. Americans earn 2x as much, have cheaper equivalent housing, cheaper cars, cheaper gas and much less tax. It's simply not possible - unless the average healthcare spend is 20k+ per working person (hint: it's not) for life to be economically harder for an American than a Brit.
However, it is possible for them to spend stupidly, and end up living paycheck to paycheck.
​
Good day.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it3fh4h wrote
> Like I said, not debating with a mental midget. Doubling down on your positions while offering nothing new is not the mark of a good debater. You still don't understand what median means. LOL
No, I do. But it's not proving what you think it is.
> LOL, you're a fool. Americans earn 2x as much, have cheaper equivalent housing, cheaper cars, cheaper gas and much less tax.
The data proves otherwise.
> It's simply not possible
Lol
Reality hurts
> However, it is possible for them to spend stupidly,
No, it's literally just wages having stagnated for 50+ years.
Here are some simple graphs that even someone as uneducated as you should be able to grasp
AftyOfTheUK t1_it3g62z wrote
>No, it's literally just wages having stagnated for 50+ years.
LOL again total failure to understand that it's even worse in the UK. Bye
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it3mwfu wrote
Yet you can't provide any data to prove that assertion
Which means you're full of it lol
AftyOfTheUK t1_it41izl wrote
I posted up links specifically to income, taxes, housing costs etc.
Go click on them and read them.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it48qcw wrote
None of those links prove the comparative assertion you’re making.
You have no data on economic mobility in the UK
BigCommieMachine t1_iszso70 wrote
The Teamsters are still powerful and will lobby like hell to prevent this from happening for a long time.
AftyOfTheUK t1_it0aw33 wrote
Indeed, there are many barriers to instant adoption.
[deleted] t1_iszvvbb wrote
[deleted]
Odd_Analyst_8905 t1_it2sq4a wrote
Truck drivers absolutely refuse to retrain. When it’s free and they can choose their training. 96 percent refused to even consider it. My tiny violin aside companies that fail to adjust will simply fail. Cheaper conversions will explode.
This could not be an issue but the drivers are stupid people so it’s going to be much much worse than it could be.
AftyOfTheUK t1_it2woq4 wrote
>This could not be an issue but the drivers are stupid people so it’s going to be much much worse than it could be.
I don't see the issue. If they choose not to retrain, they're the ones with the issue, not the rest of us.
[deleted] t1_it3a8rr wrote
[deleted]
Odd_Analyst_8905 t1_it7qgvh wrote
Sadly greed, short sightedness, and incompetence has tied our economic fates to automotive shipping. For worse or for worse.
AftyOfTheUK t1_it7u05s wrote
Sorry, again. I don't understand.
If some significant portion of drivers refuse to retrain, how does that negatively affect the rest of us? They end up taking more crappy, low-end, jobs... that's not a bad thing for everyone else?
threebillion6 t1_isyqro3 wrote
Good. Maybe our trucks won't show up 6 hours late than and have our days screwed up because we're understaffed and under paid. Now automate the warehouses and give people freedom.
TheGrayBox t1_iszt3sg wrote
> Now automate the warehouses and give people freedom.
As in…the freedom to find another job?
threebillion6 t1_it0em3h wrote
Lol Ikr. I can dream a dream. Yet it remains a dream.
TheFreakish t1_it08odh wrote
Last year I was working for a multibillion dollar corporation... That still uses an inventory system with paper processing. I use to agree with you but now I don't.
drailCA t1_it0n66e wrote
2020 was the perfect time to at least do a proper trial run of UBI. So disappointing that Noone did.
We doomed
downArrow t1_iszjw4f wrote
> Trucks can drive themselves. Companies like IKEA are already doing trials, and when they have the data that proves how much money/liability/time they're saving, it won't be long before they are adopted as the norm company-wide.
I agree. When this is cheaper than using a human driver, it will be amazing how quickly it will be adopted. I have always thought that long haul trucking and loading dock to loading dock trucking (like IKEA is doing) will be the first widely adopted driverless transportation. Limiting the vehicles to a selected set of roads where there is little cross traffic and few pedestrians makes the task much easier.
[deleted] t1_iszbwsy wrote
[removed]
plummbob t1_iszesia wrote
>We so desperately need UBI before this massive transition happens.
​
​
​
yeah, just like when all that other automation resulted in mass unemployment
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_iszocj5 wrote
> yeah, just like when all that other automation resulted in mass unemployment
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS15000000
Displacement is rarely rapid. But to say humans haven't been displaced even in our lifetimes is patently illogical.
plummbob t1_iszxi55 wrote
From 1950 to 2000 there was no automation? Wut
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_iszyjg4 wrote
I didn't say that...
Did you hit your head?
plummbob t1_it06ks8 wrote
If people are being "displaced" by automation (and by extension, trade, since they are functionally the same), why is the participation rate rising for 50 years? shouldn't it be falling?
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_it08ros wrote
You have to factor in women increasingly entering the workforce between 1950-2000, and the Baby Boomers becoming working age in the 60's.
But obviously, jobs have been displaced by automation in that time.
You see examples daily.
TunturiTiger t1_iszdaj7 wrote
No we don't. We need a world where machines don't make people obsolete in their own societies just so big businesses and profiteers can accumulate even more wealth. Some pathetic UBI is no alternative to having a job and actually making your own living. It's only a way to make a permanent slave class that relies on government handouts to survive, while the upper echelons of society live in even higher abundance and afford to buy more assets to make even more profit. It's those guys who will buy the homes which they will rent to the slave class, instead of you. It's them who will own property, and not you. It's them who will lobby the politicians and build the world to their liking, not you. You are nothing else but a worthless liability that is kept content and politically passive by handing out bread and circuses (and probably antidepressants as well).
UBI will just mean another costly wealth transfer scheme from public funds to the consumer, while the corporations and banks can cut their losses even further by not having to pay wages. From public funds to the consumer, so he can pay the rent of his tiny apartment, sending the money to the elites that own the property.
This is not a good trajectory. This is an outright dystopian trajectory. Governments have to work on even tighter budgets, people have no independence and have to live on handouts, and the ones having all the wealth will continue buying the world bit by bit, manipulating the people and lobbying the government to further their own goals.
[deleted] t1_iszf36u wrote
[deleted]
TunturiTiger t1_iszo84g wrote
Well, I'm arguing that everything will go to shit and there's not much hope for the future. And trends like these are a prime examples of it. I mean sure, the money lenders, the world of finance, the big mega-corporations, the handful of people who directly serve them will surely be thrilled. And the politicians who will get a nice bonus for their efforts to drive their cause.
The real problem here is the inevitable technological progress and accumulation of knowledge, that will never stop. It's a Pandora's box that already has posed immense potential dangers to humanity. People becoming obsolete is just one of them. I for one don't want people obsolete, stupid, dependent and manipulated beings stuck on a prison planet controlled by a skewed debt driven economic system and the sick machinery it developed out of itself.
[deleted] t1_isztwv3 wrote
[deleted]
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_iszpkcw wrote
> No we don't. We need a world where machines don't make people obsolete in their own societies
At least 100 years too late for that.
> Some pathetic UBI is no alternative to having a job and actually making your own living.
A UBI that meets basic survival needs actually empowers people to find or create jobs that are meaningful, and thrive while doing so.
> It's only a way to make a permanent slave class that relies on government handouts to survive, while the upper echelons of society live in even higher abundance and afford to buy more assets to make even more profit
What you're describing is what we have now. Most Americans live paycheck to paycheck. They are wage slaves and members of the precariat. Meanwhile, the rich continue to grow richer.
Just look at the past 30 years of data. The bottom 50% have been working hard to survive, but that's all they've managed to do.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57598
> It's those guys who will buy the homes which they will rent to the slave class, instead of you.
They already own the homes and they're currently renting to wage slaves. Are you unaware of the reality in which we live?
> UBI will just mean another costly wealth transfer scheme from public funds to the consumer, while the corporations and banks can cut their losses even further by not having to pay wages.
Please explain to me how companies could attract, much less retain workers - if they offer insufficient wages and can no longer leverage survival because everyone has UBI.
Already, companies are failing to attract & retain workers due to insufficient wages, and people don't even have the UBI to cover their survival.
If everyone had the means to survive without selling their time and labor, that takes the coercion out of all employer/employee relations because it makes work a choice.
Companies that don't pay high enough wages will not be able to attract or retain employees in a world where everyone receives UBI.
> This is not a good trajectory. This is an outright dystopian trajectory.
News flash, we're already on the dystopian trajectory. Eliminating poverty is the only thing that gives us a chance to change course.
> people have no independence and have to live on handouts,
The CTC gave parents more freedom. It didn't make them less independent. It didn't make them more dependent on the government. Giving money to parents gave them more independence because it gave them a little bit more economic power and choice.
> and the ones having all the wealth will continue buying the world bit by bit, manipulating the people and lobbying the government to further their own goals.
UBI changes it so everyone has wealth. If you understand that one of our main problems is the concentration of wealth, I'm not sure why you're opposing the most efficient method of redistributing wealth to all.
charlesfire t1_iszkwq3 wrote
I prefer to live in a world where work is optional, but few people own almost everything than a world were working isn't optional, but few people own almost everything.
TunturiTiger t1_iszm9yc wrote
The difference here is that gap will only widen further. The few will own even more, and the rest will own even less. It's a trend from bad to worse. Being obsolete and leeching off of someone else is not a nice feeling.
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_iszprao wrote
People using their UBI aren't 'leeching off' of anyone.
Because everyone gets UBI.
The parents who received the CTC would disagree with you wholeheartedly. It was a nice feeling being able to feed and clothe their kids with a bit more security.
plummbob t1_iszf57c wrote
>We need a world where machines don't make people obsolete in their own societies
​
​
people will always retain comparative advantage against machines. we've had 100 years of automation, and unemployment is pretty low.
gregtx t1_isz3sf7 wrote
I’m fairly certain I saw this truck on I45 last week. We were speculating about what it was because it’s telemetry gear is pretty eye catching.
twentyfourkaratblack t1_iszvt8d wrote
I used to see Aurora trucks on i45 and i20 in south Dallas often
TittyMcNippleFondler t1_isz5jsf wrote
But do they train the driverless trucks to cut off cars to pass each other? I couldn't live in a world where that doesn't happen.
Jesse0100 t1_isyvark wrote
I am tempted to believe that the only reason self driving cars are taking so long for government approval is that it will put thousands of municipal governments out of business, since their only source of funding is traffic tickets. Also many jails are full of traffic offenders who could not pay their fines. We should also need less police officers because the time spent on traffic enforcement will be freed up.
ProjectShamrock t1_isywe3v wrote
The police are already struggling to employ new cops, so this may help alleviate that problem.
Gullible_Shart t1_iszm1sp wrote
Article “better working conditions for truck drivers“. More like getting rid of truck drivers completely!
Jesse0100 t1_isymhu0 wrote
From what I see in the news driverless trucks have been the norm in Europe for years.
brucebrowde t1_isyqsnk wrote
That's interesting! Do you have some sauce handy?
LeviathanGank t1_isz2wjd wrote
nope, also imagine the psychos in america following a slow safe truck. gonna be a bloodbath.
Jesse0100 t1_isz8n44 wrote
Looking forward to all the memes featuring Karens yelling at driverless trucks.
[deleted] t1_iszdbnv wrote
I predict the first person to die in this trial will be on San Antonio interstates. No one drives as horribly as the jack assess in San Antonio.
fescueFred t1_iszlx2z wrote
What happens when deliver site is reachrd?? Customer unloads?
UnsubstantiatedClaim t1_it05je4 wrote
> While the truck has a backup driver behind the wheel who's in charge of picking up the loaded trailer and of overseeing the delivery, the truck runs autonomously over long stretches of highway during its 300-mile, one-way journey.
TheFreakish t1_it07h7a wrote
This kind of just sounds like lane assist.
spoollyger t1_it0yk5l wrote
They hire 1 truck driver to get into the newly arrived truck and park it. Instead of having hundreds of them.
[deleted] t1_iszpj8x wrote
[deleted]
FuturologyBot t1_isyrouc wrote
The following submission statement was provided by /u/idapitbwidiuatabip:
The technology is here. Trucks can drive themselves. Companies like IKEA are already doing trials, and when they have the data that proves how much money/liability/time they're saving, it won't be long before they are adopted as the norm company-wide.
On the robotics side, companies like Kodiak who make the self-driving trucks will have their IKEA data to help them sell directly to other companies, without any need for 'trial periods.'
Then once other businesses start to get the Fear of Missing Out, adoption will skyrocket. We so desperately need UBI before this massive transition happens.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/y88rue/ikea_is_trialing_driverless_truck_deliveries_in/isymesl/
[deleted] t1_isyxizw wrote
[removed]
Will33iam t1_iszkviv wrote
Does this mean that they can start paying their workers more since they won’t have to worry about paying delivery drivers anymore?
Big_Forever5759 t1_iszz25f wrote
Maybe we should start taxing commercial self driving vehicles. Because for sure companies are not going to lower the price of stuff when they don’t have to pay truckers.
Pricerocks t1_it03iw8 wrote
If they can get it working on Texas roads they can do it anywhere
loric21 t1_it0403x wrote
I wish they’d figure out how to update stock availability on their website first 😞
LeonSilverhand t1_it053ev wrote
This shit is gonna kick off a lot sooner than people think. Therefore, it's no surprise the WEF mouthpiece Yuval Harari is already telling people that many will become useless and "redundant" as the 4th industrial revolution takes over. He then "jokingly" proposes drugs and video games for the jobless. It is no joke.
goallthewaydude t1_it0eatj wrote
By 2030 half of humanity will be considered surplus labor.
Fabulous-Friend1697 t1_it0hfv5 wrote
If they can adapt to Texas drivers and construction zones, they can drive anywhere.
[deleted] t1_it0yftt wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_it1mhy7 wrote
[removed]
groveborn t1_itanaef wrote
It will take at least 20 years to roll this out to a significant portion of the country. Human drivers and delivery personnel are just too hard to replace to do this right now.
The roads need to be remade, signage meant for the robots (electronic or visible), and some time to overcome inertia.
It's probably easy to replace the rail to storehouse tracks with automation, but the last mile, especially in small towns, old areas of large towns, and in areas that require subtle navigation, will need a human. I think an intermediary with a drone style central navigation will be needed for many years.
In the meantime, we have a dire shortage of drivers. This could reduce the inflationary pressure of the cost associated with that shortage.
herbw t1_itmi773 wrote
"trialing" is a dreadful misnomer. They are "testing", rather.
Problems with driverless cars or computer decision makin which is linear, not Complex system, the vehicles are driving in. Innumerable problems can come up, unpredictable and only humans can solve those. Low traffic out in the boonies such as east/west across NV, are easy to do.
Until ya get to Sparks/reno. Then it all slows way down.
The problem is this, using vast amounts of data from cars and truck operating is simply too complex to solve/sort.
This is how it can be done, directly, testably, and clearly. No fuss, no muss, Expert systems based.
https://jochesh00.wordpress.com/2017/06/10/problem-solving-for-self-driving-cars-a-model/
sanrigabro t1_iszlc2u wrote
Way to go ikea! Just what we needed in Houston highways SMH
nailbunny2000 t1_it28l4o wrote
This thing is gonna be full of bullet holes from angry Texan truck drivers cause its takin' ther jerbs.
Anomaly-Friend t1_iszrmvy wrote
Why don't they just make remote controlled vehicles at this point. I feel like that'd be better and the people could work from home or something
idapitbwidiuatabip OP t1_iszsqpa wrote
But why?
Automate work that can be automated, implement a UBI, and empower people to find or create work that's more meaningful.
Anomaly-Friend t1_iszv55h wrote
I'd love UBI. I just don't think they'd implement it anytime soon. But making it remote controlled would at least keep the job but make it easier on the driver's I guess
TheGeewrecks t1_it1rr9v wrote
They're automating the more meaningful jobs too. They don't give a shit!
UncommercializedKat t1_isz9zpj wrote
At first, the thought of a driverless truck is kinda scary. But then I remembered what it was like driving on Texas highways with drivers behind the wheel.