General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill self driving trucks cause another recession?
Anyone else see this map and get a little scared of whats going to happen in the next 5 years?
EDIT - Could you not see the image?
direct link:
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-most-common-job-in-every-state
slide the bar to 2014. the most common job accross several states is a truck driver. When self driving trucks get approved, millions of people will get laid off taking who knows how much out of the economy.
EDIT 2 - Another reason why a 'Living wage' wont work in the 21st century, however a guaranteed basic income will.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)peapodsss
(33 posts)When self driving trucks get approved, millions of people will get laid off taking who knows how much out of the economy.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)If you go back as recently as the 1950s, the most common job in most of rural New England was lumberjack. I don't recall there being a recession when lumber jobs declined. It depends what rises (in New England: education and carpentry) to replace those trucking jobs.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
Link?
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck
We can’t stop there though, because the incomes received by these 8.2 million people create the jobs of others. Those 3.5 million truck drivers driving all over the country stop regularly to eat, drink, rest, and sleep. Entire businesses have been built around serving their wants and needs. Think restaurants and motels as just two examples. So now we’re talking about millions more whose employment depends on the employment of truck drivers. But we still can’t even stop there.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Yep, there will be a lot of down stream damage. Truck driver is a last resort for many...
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)peapodsss
(33 posts)haikugal
(6,476 posts)Thanks for correcting that..helps a lot. 
Algernon Moncrieff
(5,961 posts)Long run -- they will put a lot of folks out of work.
My guess is that in phase 1, self drivers will be used on long haul OTR routes to terminals outside of major cities. In this phase, I suspect that people will be employed to monitor the trucks from remote locations and take over remote operation if necessary. Human drivers will still take loads from the terminals to docks. In phase 2, the remote monitors will be eliminated, and local self-drivers will be introduced.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)peapodsss
(33 posts)when I worked at sears before going to college we unloaded all new deliveries, the truck driver just sat in his truck.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)so it appears it depends on the trucking cos policy
peapodsss
(33 posts)trucking companies who don't hire drivers and tell their customers that they will need to unload the goods they get will have a significant cost advantage over their peers.
Self driving trucks also don't get sleepy, don't take breaks, don't text while they drive, don't get road rage the list goes on and on.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)peapodsss
(33 posts)however, breakdowns are uncommon, and as long as the company does regular check-ups, they will be even less rare.
If a self driving truck does break down, they could just have a mechanic drive out and fix it. and send the truck back on its way.
One of the biggest costs of a trucking company is paying the drivers. A self driving trucking company will have a huge advantage.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I don't know where you live, but where I live we have two seasons winter and pothole. I've literally seen the wheels come off a bus as a result of hitting a deep pothole. A bent control arm or tie rod is no easy fix on a semi on the side of the road, it's also dangerous.
Somehow, I don't think the driverless tow truck will be able to perform all the tasks that will be required in order to get said driverless vehicle to the repair shop. I just don't.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,876 posts)Because I am and have been the better part of 30 years.
The prototype self driving trucks are fine on open interstate, but there are too many variables that exist to completely remove a driver from the cab.
What happens when the tractor blows a steer tire in traffic? Or in the middle of a complex construction zone?
That's all there is to it, eh? Spoken like someone who really has no clue about the trucking industry.
They won't remove the driver. Not for a very long time to come. And since that's how I make my living, I trust I'll be dead by then.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I don't understand these arguments, computer excel at multitasking and accounting for thousands if not millions of variables.
I would agree that there will be a transition, probably 10 to 15 years before truck drivers aren't in the vehicles any more.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)back in the '80s. $4.50/hour for a 4-hour shift.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)you don't get paid as much being a 'loader' as you do being a driver.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)will perform these tasks? I'm not saying the technology does not exist. I'm saying that I don't think they will be utilized in the manner in which the OP imagines.
Old Union Guy
(738 posts)I don't say it can never happen, but self driving truck are not coming any time soon.
peapodsss
(33 posts)They are already here, now.
Uber, Tesla, Google and Apple predict self driving cars will break into the mainstream by 2020. That's 5 years.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)People don't want to give up that type of control. Personally, I would never opt for sitting in the back seat or passenger seat while my care drove itself.
Darb
(2,807 posts)too long. It is coming and it is coming fast. The changes in our lifestyles will be monumental. Our cars will be our first robots.
"Car, go pick up the kids at school." Get it?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Do you think technology will be perfect and malfunctions will not occur? I think malfunctions and breakdowns will occur often and malicious hackers will have the ability to sabotage these machines. Currently all devices are capable of being and do get hacked with various forms of virus and malware, I think driver-less cars will be no different. I think it would be a mistake to entrust you child's life to a machine. "Car go pick up the kids from school" you said. And the first time that car isn't back with your kids when you expect- what you gonna do? Send your second driver-less car to go find them?
And even if what you say is true- and these vehicles are perfectly reliable- do you really think insurance companies are going to willingly give up all those premiums from individual drivers and put themselves out of business? Really?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the occurance of malfunctions.
Tens of thousands of people die in the United States from preventable roadside accidents every year, the overwhelming majority caused by human error, recklessness or malfeance. Do you honestly think computer driven vehicles will be worse than that?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I have said that I don't think what the OP is in a panic about will occur and why. I have also posted my opinions in regards to potential problems with them.
I don't think people will like them. Americans LOVE their cars and they LOVE driving them
I don't think they will be as reliable as some people think they are
I don't think oil companies are going to be willing to go back to full service filling stations
I don't think driverless tow trucks will be able to perform all the necessary tasks
I don't think dispatched mechanics will be able to make necessary roadside repairs in every case
I don't think insurance companies are going to want to forego all those $$s from insurance premiums drivers currently pay.
I don't disagee that they won't be utilized in some manner, however I don't believe it will be in the manner that the OP imagines.
Can I say what I think any clearer than that?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)On Americans loving their cars, thats true, however its only slightly related to the OP. Most Americans don't drive haulers either. In addition our culture adapts to new technology all the time.
On the reliability of the cars, all evidence points to them being safer and more reliable than humans, thats good enough.
On the full service stations, for at least long distance haulers, it would most likely start at designated truck stops, which will gradually retool themselves to be more efficient, foregoing the restaurants, showers and other accomodations for long distance truck drivers. Such transitions will be gradual, similar to charging stations for electric cars.
Again, transitions will take place and I see tow trucks as one of the last to be automated, probably around the time that the design of trucks and cars will follow a new type of industry standard to allow automated hitching and towing.
You next points doesn't really apply.
Insurance companies will be happy to have lower premiums if it means they make more money in not paying out in accidents.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)who will do very little if any driving.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)and that is what I was replying to. Now it seems that the bar has been moved. SMDH
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Unemployment will most likely go up if no new jobs are created to offset the losses. Doesn't matter if its sudden or gradual, it can still lead to recession.
NickB79
(20,357 posts)And seeing how many tens of thousands of us splatter ourselves over the highways every year, that's not a high hurtle to clear.
Our cars are already essentially computers on wheels, with built-in GPS and electronically-controlled everything. And companies like Google have developed their self-driving cars to the point that almost all the accidents they've had are due to human-driven cars hitting the Google cars: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/google-driverless-car-involved-in-first-injury-causing-accident/
I agree with you on that point. Software is the biggest weak spot for self-driving cars.
treestar
(82,383 posts)major redesign of all roadways. How could everything on the road be made predictable enough?
How will they account for sudden moves by pedestrians? Or sudden wrong moves by other vehicles?
It would have to be controlled like air traffic control. To a point where that would have to create even more jobs.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)it could be argued with better decision making than any human. They would have better situational awareness. So why would the roads need to be retooled to be predictable?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)they would have sensors. Ever replace a sensor on your current vehicle? On occasion they do go bad.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)If they are going to be more expensive to operate and they are not more cost effective- then why replace humans with them? Safer you say? Not as long as they share the roads with humans.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)to self-insure yourself. I imagine, once the technology matures, insurance companies are going to charge much higher rates for human driven cars than computer driven cars.
Logical
(22,457 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)When was the last time you got into your very own flying car or had your pipe and slippers brought to you by your robot?
peapodsss
(33 posts)flying cars don't exist.
Yes i know there is a guy on youtube with a 'flying car' thats worth 150k. The point is the are economically unfeasible at this point in time.
Self driving cars however, are here. now. Most tech companies developing the software predict they will be out in the mainstream in 5 years.
Once self driving trucks are approved and self driving trucking companies start undercutting regular trucking companies by 33%, the most common job in america, the truck driver, will go extinct over-night.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)too. I think you're panicking for no reason.
peapodsss
(33 posts)the stupidity of human drivers.
self driving cars dont blick, dont text while driving, dont get sleepy or stupid, dont get road rage.
Id wager the the liability insurance would be even less.
last year there were 32 thousand car deaths.
FYI so far all self driving car accidents have been the fault of humans.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)The liability that will not be affordable will be that of a human driver. Not to mention the amount of fuel that will be saved. Once you let go of your control issues, you can sit down and think of all of the ways that it will be better. Much, much better.
I for one cannot wait.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)12 accidents mind, but every single one a human driver's fault in the other car, not the self driving one.
That's equivalent to about 150 years of typical driving for a human with no accidents caused. How do humans compare to that average? Very very poorly indeed.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)And how many of these driverless trucks are on the road as of now? A dozen, two dozen? A hundred, a thousand? Do you really think once there are millions (remember the OP very specifically said that 3 million truck driving jobs would go in 5 years) on the road, the numbers will be the same?
Do you really believe there will be no breakdowns? No wear and tear on the breaks, no pothole mishaps or sensors going bad? And even if a human caused an accident, the driverless vehicle was still involved. It really does not matter the fault.
If we're going to put 3 million driverless trucks on the road in 5 years, there are going to be assembly flaws and errors. Shit, we've been building cars now for over 100 years and just this year there have been countless recalls. And we're not even talking about sabotage of the computer system and network these vehicles will run on. Computers crash and go down on occasion, won't that be fun to deal with when it happens when driverless trucks are on the roads in mass?
Logical
(22,457 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)In the victorian era, they predicted moving sidewalks. People believed all one would have to do is stand there and it would take you where you wanted to go. And we have them. Again, in the Victorian era, flying machines were predicted, and we have those too. They imagined them to be used individually for things like whisking chimney sweeps up to the rooftops. Walking on water was another prediction in the Victorian era. Submarines were predicted. People believed they would be used for throwing dinner parties. They believed they wouldplay water polo while riding seahorses. Well, the water polo on sea horses thing didn't materialize but all the other things I mentioned did. However, they are not used in the way those people imagined.
I think that will be true for these driverless vehicles also. I do not think they will be used to eliminate truck driving positions overnight or any time soon. I just don't.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)about flying machines, flying cars and other fanciful "technology" from the Victorian era and much of the 20th century, for example, flying cars, is that they didn't take into account physics and energy requirements. Energy wise, its bloody expensive to have flying cars, hence why, at best, you would have a type of flying, personal roto-copter, restrictions of physics and energy restrict the practicality of such inventions. Driverless, computer controlled vehicles aren't remotely in the same category.
There is already a lot of computer controlled devices in industry, machines not operated by people. They have been proven more reliable than people in various tasks. Now, we have both hardware and software flexibility to be able to design machines that can sense the environment much better than a human, at speed, and be able to account for hundreds if not thousands of variables and scenarios that would never occur to a human, with reaction times thousands of times faster than a human.
These computers exist, now, the biggest hurdle is the restrictions of the sensors, but even that is beings solved, slowly. I wouldn't be surprised if within the next year or so, Google, or Uber, or Mercedes or someone will come out with a fully automated vehicles that can navigate off road in inclement weather.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)they're just not used in the manner that they were imagined. The OP imagines driver-less trucks will take over the industry putting people out of work. Personally, I don't think people are going to like them and they will not be used in the manner which the OP imagines they will be used.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)will prefer them over human drivers.
The fact is that they will, eventually. Computer controlled trucks will only need to stop to refuel, which reduces downtime and increase profits. They won't fall asleep at the wheel, or be prone to human error, which is the cause of most accidents. So, overall, driverless trucks will be more cost effective in the future.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)They may become cost effective and practical in the future. Or full service attendents may become a thing again.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I would assume the point at which the driverless long-hauler becomes viable isn't the day that we have a viable truck-driving technology but the day we have a viable electric truck drive-train.
Start at point A, drive to points B through G and either return to A or to an omega where it will plug itself in to recharge for the next run or leg of its run. Process automation steadily increases.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)the trailer? Who will hook up the air lines? At the customer who will open up the trailer doors? Etc Etc Etc
Chan790
(20,176 posts)A person, then robots, robots, robots, robots, robots.
Basically the only job in the whole chain of actions from loading the truck to setting-up the truck to driving the truck to unloading the truck I cannot see a robot doing is the inspection.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)can get jobs at truck stop gas stations because the damn things aren't going to refuel themselves.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We are not going to jump off bridges because we are no longer needed.
Huge numbers of unemployed people wl not just sit there. They attack and destroy the trucks. People have to be convinced they wl create jobs.
renate
(13,776 posts)How do you know about all these predictions? They're so fun!
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)No, that was supposed to be funny. I'm not psycho or psychic. I listened to a lecture and the speaker collected Victorian era postcards that displayed what people thought the future would be like in 100 years. The postcards were part of his slide show.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)There is a very valid reason why you don't now and never will have a flying car. They, like helicopters and road cars, would occasionally hit things or run out of fuel or break-down.
When those things occur in the helicopter...generally all or most of the occupants die, no matter how minor the incident.
In road cars, they're generally survivable.
Flying cars would be more like the helicopter than the car in that respect.
The reason you'll never see a flying car is because the flying car is a terrible, fanciful idea with no upside or practical benefit. You don't have a flying car for the same reason you don't have a lightsaber or plasma dagger. Because it's a fucking dumb unnecessary idea better left unrealized.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I know everyone doesn't have their own flying car. I know they are not practical. The point I was making and have stated in other posts is that all these things do exist. However, they are not utilized in the manner that people imagined them.
Yes, we do have flying cars. They are known as airplanes and helicopters. They do ferry people around to where they want to go and some may own their own but they are not as common as they were imagined to be by those that predicted them.
The OP is predicting that millions of truck drivers will be put out of work in the next five years by trucks that drive themselves. I disagree.
I was not asking why we all did not have them, but thanks for your expert opinion on the matter.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)peapodsss
(33 posts)We just need to decided what to do with the 3 million truckers who get laid off.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Throd
(7,208 posts)It is definitely change. Not sure about the progress part.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)I don't want self-driving vehicles of any kind, any time soon. We don't have the necessary level of technology yet.
[img]
[/img]
oberliner
(58,724 posts)That's interesting.
Matt_R
(456 posts)
TheFarseer
(9,770 posts)So what's the problem?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Unless it was produce grown on the farm you stopped at.
Doesn't matter whether it began its journey on a boat, train, or plane; it ended its journey on a truck.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)I get driverless cars. But did we learn nothing from maximum overdrive? And I don't know any gas stations with working bazookas in them.
But slightly more seriously, will they program the trucks to not shift over when someone is merging on to maintain consistency with current truck drivers?
OK in all seriousness, people have been worried about technology effecting jobs for basically ever. It never really comes to pass. One technology replaces another and jobs shift from one field to another. At some point in the future most menial jobs will be replaced by automation (if we don't wipe ourselves out first). Society will adjust to take advantage of this, not degrade because of it. There might be short term pains due to the transition but it will all balance out in the long run and we'll be better for it.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,876 posts)First of all, it isn't the responsibility of the vehicle already on the freeway to yield to traffic on the entrance ramp. Properly and safely merging is the job of the driver entering the freeway. Why this simple, basic, driving 101 concept is lost on so many American motorists beyond me. If it is safe to do so, I move over, but it amazes me how many people fucking REFUSE to press on the accelerator OR don't look in their rearview or over their shoulder to check the lane they are entering.
You are driving a vehicle with a power to weight ratio roughly 10 times what a typical 18 wheeler has, yet you can't seem to find the gas pedal and speed up to get in front of me? OK, not YOU...but everyfuckingbody else!
And this;
While I am quite sure there isn't the great grandson of a buggy whip maker still lamenting the demise of the family business, your statement that society will not degrade is not based in fact.
If every "menial job" is soon to be done by a machine, who will benefit?
Certainly not the guy who just lost his job to that machine.
RichVRichV
(885 posts)Let me put it another way just for you. The vast majority of truckers on the road are nice courteous drivers (like most drivers are). The majority of intentional assholes on the highways are truckers.
OK, technically that last line isn't true. Police make up the majority of intentional assholes on highways. But truckers are somewhere far off in second in volume. 
But to honestly answer your point, many drivers are just idiots (which should be obvious to most people). Other times smaller vehicles are already at max acceleration and simply can't get up to speed any faster, especially if the on ramp is at an incline or has a sharp curve. The only options at that point is to hope someone lets you on or slow down even farther and get onto the freeway way slower than is safe.
One thing I can say from personal observation. Many truckers are way more likely to get over and let another trucker on than they are to do the same for a small vehicle.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,876 posts)make sure that you see if he had a good reason for not doing so.
"Obviously I hit a nerve"
yeah...that nerve is my 2 million + miles of accident free driving experience in all the lower 48 and 3 Canadian provinces. 683 of those miles today.
There are without a doubt, asshole truckers out there. No argument. I see them every day. But here's the thing - unless you actually count them, you really have no idea how many trucks, both big and small, you drive near on a regular basis. The reason you don't notice the vast majority of them is because they are being operated by a professional who is doing the right thing.
The assholes stand out.
I find the second sentence to be....well..laughable. In all those two million miles I have rarely, and I mean VERY RARELY been in a situation where the merging vehicle that was next to me was at "maximum acceleration". Most people get little to no training regarding freeway driving and most Americans are utterly clueless on how to properly use a multi-lane, limited access freeway, never mind how to properly merge.
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)well before it gets to that point. You as a driver are shown the merging sign well before the merging takes place, which means you have time to get over. If someone has to stop they could get rear ended and seriously hurt or killed.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)That makes you a predictable driver above all and predicting what other drivers are going to do is a huge part of being a safe driver.
The law says that it is the responsibility of the vehicle merging to avoid the other vehicles already cruising on the roadway. One thing you can count on with a cargo truck is that they aren't going to violently accelerate, it's easy to merge in front of them with almost any car if you are willing and able to use the capabilities of the car and you have planned and executed your merging strategy properly.
I don't want to have to dodge sixty foot long tractor trailer rigs changing lanes at every damn intersection, they will be pulling in front of faster car drivers on a regular basis doing that.
A HERETIC I AM
(24,876 posts)To re-state what I said above, it is not the responsibility of the vehicles already on the road to do the job incumbent on the entering vehicle.
What you are asking is that I run down the middle or left lane so that you don't have to do your job, "keep right except to pass" rule be damned.
If someone has to stop on an entrance ramp they are doing it wrong, and I see that sort of thing all the time also.
The typical entrance ramp on the interstate system has at least 200 yards of acceleration lane - that is the portion of the ramp that parallels the flow of traffic and is separated by a dotted line. It is there for a reason.
The reason is to match your speed with traffic.
Again, if it is safe to do so, I move over to accommodate entering traffic, but no cop would ever pull me over for NOT doing so.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)thrown in.
We need mincome as soon as possible, however, at least start the transition.
I'm not egotistical enough to think my job is safe from automation either. It can be replaced by a couple of cleverly designed software agents, one to fill out and create the documentation I create every week or so, and a natural language AI agent for the phone. Hell, the only saving grace I have right now on that front is that people prefer to talk to other people, but once they get something like Siri or Cortana to be unrecognizable as a computer at all based on voice, then why bother having a human on that end of the line, who would be able to tell the difference? Particularly if they have built in heuristics that can make actual decisions and judgements reliably.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)I would actually watch that!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)H-1B visas) - looks like we are really going to need that huge infrastructure job plan that Bernie has proposed. Although I think the new corporate "trade" agreements will most probably be able to sue if we give those jobs to Americans.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)But nobody gave a damn about them. Their plight was whitewashed by lofty rhetoric chirping "creative destruction", cheap products, global harmony, and a desire to glamorize the move of the US from icky jobs that required getting dirty to "knowledge" workers.
The labor arbitrage causing downward wage/employment pressure on the IT sector was among the first of the wide-scale attack on white collar employees; at which time the media began giving a shit about rent-seeking behavior of corporations eroding employment.
Pure class bias. Pure and simple.
djean111
(14,255 posts)My son is a fine carpentry carpenter, he has done amazing work in multi-million dollar homes in the Tampa bay area, and had a great steady income doing the finish carpentry in upscale housing developments. Almost all of that is gone, now, cheap labor brought in, rushing through sloppy jobs, and gone before the homeowner can see what needs to be fixed.
Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)The class bias was in the media/intelligensia/beltway, sterile, ivory tower mentality. To them, anything blue collar was "unskilled" and ripe to be forfeited in the name of "inevitable" globalization. The employees of same were lumpen proles under their radar....to be sneered at.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)CEOs could be replaced by types of administrative agents that aid the board of directors in decision making. Similar to the financial service bots and agents that exist today.
ON EDIT: There are also programs that design new products based on principles such as natural selection that turn out much more efficient designs than humans can make.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If the demand is so high for CEOs that exorbitant salaries needed to be paid, we have a huge shortage of CEO talent and need to bring in that talent from the rest of the world.
The corporations keeps saying they can't find the IT talent that they need, their apparent need for executives is MUCH greater.
treestar
(82,383 posts)why would they not run over pedestrians and crash into things? The unexpected can always occur on the road.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Last edited Sat Oct 24, 2015, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Are the really ready to have 80000 pound trucks cruising down every freeway, every little sideroad in america with no human in the cab in case something goes wrong?
I kinda doubt it but I bet lawyers can't wait for that to happen.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)and send them careening into oncoming traffic for shits and grins?
Do you really think they will be hack proof because so far nothing is.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)on these driver less trucks while they fuel.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)If it's not driverless trucks it will be something else. Yes, there should be a guaranteed basic income for every one.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Like in a caravan. So it's not totally autonomous, as there is still a human being in charge. But that would seriously reduce the need for truck drivers.
Same thing with "deep learning" artificial intelligence, it is more of a human being and highly advanced artificial intelligence working together that will vastly reduce the need but not completely eliminate the need for humans.
PatrickforO
(15,426 posts)robots replace most of our labor force?
There are basically two options:
1. Allow the displaced workers to form a permanent underclass which would then be enslaved for 'personal service' by the oligarchs
2. Rethink our economy, get rid of the Fed and the bankers, print our own money and guarantee every person a living income
That's really it, and it's coming.
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)Technology happens. There isn't a heck of a lot we can do to stop it.
And the question is whether we should.
The flip-side of self-driving vehicles is the potential for saving lives. And I mean thousands of lives. In Google's experiments with self-driving cars, the accidents that have happened have always been a human's fault (like the self-driving car gets rear-ended by some idiot texting and driving.)
Computers don't get tired. They don't get distracted by cell phones. They don't get road rage. They don't get drunk. Their reflexes are much faster than a human's. So if a significant portion of the cars in the U.S. get replaced with self-driving cars, the accident rate will plummet, and lives will be saved. We're already seeing savings in lives and property from vehicles that are starting to automate, with automatic emergency braking, for example if the car's sensors detect an imminent collision situation. Anti-lock brakes are already standard, that's because microcontrollers can pump the brakes much faster and better than a panicky human can when the car starts skidding.
Sorry if it costs you your job, but I'd say that self-driving vehicles will be a net gain for us as a nation.
frizzled
(509 posts)When we get to self driving CARS this will basically change everything in cities.
Califonz
(465 posts)Even if these do make it onto the highways, after the first few spectacular fatal accidents self-driving vehicles will be outlawed.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Self driving cars will be the norm relatively soon too. That means lots of unemployed taxi drivers, messengers, delivery drivers etc. Libraries, book stores and music stores are going away leading to more unemployment.
As productivity improves less people are needed. This is not a bad thing but it does take careful planning to ensure that we all share in the productivity gains not just the rich. We should be planning to work less hours (creating more jobs) for better pay.