The beginning of the end for taxi drivers

iamtony · 20-08-2016 06:28AM

Billy86 wrote: »

That os interesting. Any idea on the total value or clout? Just curious since I looked up Uber who are valued at $50bn, and have Google on board. Can't speak for all of North America of course, but they are absolutely huge in and around Toronto (similar population to Ireland without the north).

No idea of the value but I do no Hailos only profitable market was Dublin and as a whole are a loss making company. Same applies to Uber some areas they are profitable, more areas they are not.
The Valuation on Uber is crazy, it's all based on what investors hope they will achieve in the future. At the moment they loose money hand over fist.

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 01:58PM

It does seem clear that if robots replace humans in many jobs that there would be increased unemployment.

The only solution is universal income for everybody. In other words, free money for all working age adults. Children and pensioners are already funded.

Self driving cars willcontinue to improve and will be here in 10 to 20 years for sure.

Massive efficiency gains to be had for society if we had a national fleet of self driving cars.

It will mean big changes for sure but it will happen.

The likes of 'redacted' will lobby the government to allow him to own all the cars and to make all the money. That's great for him but others will need to be given free money to allow them to live.

What about pleasure driving by humans?
Will it be allowed or would it be banned.
Unfortunately I reckon human drivers will eventually be banned.
The reason given will be safety concerns but the actual reason will be that 'redacted' will want free reign to make as much money as possible as he is greedy.

Should the national fleet of self driving cars be owned by private businessmen or should it be considered a national resource, like the road network?

I think it's obvious that our government will sell out to private interests.

Formula One drivers, and other racing drivers are immune. What'd be the point in watching self driving cars compete with each other?

Self driving cars will be far safer and cheaper. Therefore, people will want to use them.

Companies need to start paying more tax. They need to fund all of society. Instead governments are allowing companies to pay virtually no tax. This will destroy our economies and then our societies.

People need to cop on that automation and artificial intelligence will utterly change our societies. A universal income is required.

Chuchote · 20-08-2016 02:00PM

The 'free income' idea doesn't seem feasible to me; surely if everyone gets it, it's the same as no one getting it; prices would simply rise to ignore it, and the poor would be as poor as now.

wakka12 · 20-08-2016 02:05PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

It does seem clear that if robots replace humans in many jobs that there would be increased unemployment.

The only solution is universal income for everybody. In other words, free money for all working age adults. Children and pensioners are already funded.

Self driving cars willcontinue to improve and will be here in 10 to 20 years for sure.

Massive efficiency gains to be had for society if we had a national fleet of self driving cars.

It will mean big changes for sure but it will happen.

The likes of 'redacted' will lobby the government to allow him to own all the cars and to make all the money. That's great for him but others will need to be given free money to allow them to live.

What about pleasure driving by humans?
Will it be allowed or would it be banned.
Unfortunately I reckon human drivers will eventually be banned.
The reason given will be safety concerns but the actual reason will be that 'redacted' will want free reign to make as much money as possible as he is greedy.

Should the national fleet of self driving cars be owned by private businessmen or should it be considered a national resource, like the road network?

I think it's obvious that our government will sell out to private interests.

Formula One drivers, and other racing drivers are immune. What'd be the point in watching self driving cars compete with each other?

Self driving cars will be far safer and cheaper. Therefore, people will want to use them.

Companies need to start paying more tax. They need to fund all of society. Instead governments are allowing companies to pay virtually no tax. This will destroy our economies and then our societies.

People need to cop on that automation and artificial intelligence will utterly change our societies. A universal income is required.

How boring would life be with universal income. I know we all complain about our jobs but its our boring work weeks that make leisure time and social time and holidays so much more enjoyable. You know when you were in school you couldn't wait for school to end and have all the free time in summer but then summer just got really boring eventually and you actually wanted to go back.Itll be like that, but it'll be for your whole life

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 02:08PM

chuchote wrote:

The 'free income' idea doesn't seem feasible to me; surely if everyone gets it, it's the same as no one getting it; prices would simply rise to ignore it, and the poor would be as poor as now.

That's not correct.

People don't act like cartels.

Competition will continue to exist. People who are relatively poorer may struggle with high prices but if you have a similar amount of money to a relatively large number of people then you cannot be priced out of the market like you describe.

We are talking about a future with 20% unemployment, or even up to 40% or 50% unemployment.

In any event, society should ensure that everyone has sufficient resources to live on, otherwise we'd be encouraging crime.

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 02:11PM

wakka12 wrote: »

How boring would life be with universal income. I know we all complain about our jobs but its our boring work weeks that make leisure time and social time and holidays so much more enjoyable. You know when you were in school you couldn't wait for school to end and have all the free time in summer but then summer just got really boring eventually and you actually wanted to go back.Itll be like that, but it'll be for your whole life

If you find value in working then that's fine; I won't judge you for that.

But I don't agree with you. For many people working in poorly paid jobs work is a chore. It is not glorious.

Many people at the moment don't work and instead sit around all day. They find it ok and in actual fact I suspect that many of them consider workers to be suckers, for working so hard all the time.

Drugs would also have to be made legal of course.

Chuchote · 20-08-2016 02:23PM

I've found value in every job I've done, pretty varied work too. Status, that's another question, and I now realise that I have made really stupid life choices, historically, because of a really stupid attitude to status; this is common, I think.

Getting back to transport, Finland is hoping to have residents car-free in eight years:

http://inhabitat.com/helsinki-wants-residents-car-free-within-just-10-years/

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 02:29PM

The posters above who find value or status in work and who want to work are the ones who will continue to work even if unemployment is at 50% or more.

One of the main objections to universal income is that everybody will stop working. That seems not to be true as many people say they find value in work.

The other main objection to universal income is lack of affordibility. That is why companies must pay sufficient tax to fund all of society.

Self driving cars will be here, and within 10 years. Apparently approx 4.5% of our population work as drivers.

Society need to make big changes but it seems we won't. Unplanned changes will be worse than planned changes.

wakka12 · 20-08-2016 02:38PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

The posters above who find value or status in work and who want to work are the ones who will continue to work even if unemployment is at 50% or more.

One of the main objections to universal income is that everybody will stop working. That seems not to be true as many people say they find value in work.

The other main objection to universal income is lack of affordibility. That is why companies must pay sufficient tax to fund all of society.

Self driving cars will be here, and within 10 years. Apparently approx 4.5% of our population work as drivers.

Society need to make big changes but it seems we won't. Unplanned changes will be worse than planned changes.

And why would producers of our goods and services today want to continue producing for the public if they are just given enough money to live with in the first place. No incentive to work, but we do still need them to produce these things for society. I know of lots of people who own restaurants and cafes that are barely scraping by, why not just close it down and live off the governments universal income.

peckdunn · 20-08-2016 02:44PM

Taxi sex tapes - do you think there will be a rush to join the two foot club?

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 03:09PM

wakka12 wrote: »

And why would producers of our goods and services today want to continue producing for the public if they are just given enough money to live with in the first place. No incentive to work, but we do still need them to produce these things for society. I know of lots of people who own restaurants and cafes that are barely scraping by, why not just close it down and live off the governments universal income.

Most goods are produced by corporations. They are not persons, and they cannot stop working and claim universal income.

In the future, a higher proportion of goods will be produced by multinational corporations.

The only purpose of a corporation is to make profit. That is the only reason for their existence.

I say we should tax their profits at 50% say, instead of at 12% or thereabouts as currently.

No real person loses out as the corporation is not a flesh and blood person. The owners of the corporations do receive less profit but they continue to receive profits.
Obviously they will complain but society should ridicule them for their greed and short-sightedness. Society will fail if corporations are allowed to pay no taxes.

The country should be run for the benefit of the majority, not for the benefit of a corporation owning minority.

Also, you are ignoring that people could leave their jobs today and collect the dole. They don't. Whatever is the reason they don't today will be the same reason they don't in the future.

Chuchote · 20-08-2016 03:19PM

The problem isn't the 12% corporation tax rate.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/firm-that-part-funded-purchase-of-clerys-paid-214-tax-last-year-34971182.html

Firm that part funded purchase of Clerys paid €214 tax last year

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 03:28PM

I agree that these cute company structures will destroy society.

People should damand that companies pay tax.

Google, Facebook, Starbucks should be publicly ridiculed for their immense greed.

And the criticism should be led by politicitians.

Instead we have weak leaders like Enda Kenny who can hardly speak in public without making major errors.

Mark my words, society will fail in the next 20 years if corporations are allowed to pay no taxes.

crossmolinalad · 20-08-2016 03:32PM

wakka12 wrote: »

I always hear that excuse, that the many jobs lost in certain sectors will all be replaced in robotics engineering or whatever. But realistically they wont, robots are going to leave a huge percentage of people in a vast number of sectors unemployed with very little other job opportunities. Robots arent going to improve the world, I hope we don't put money before human jobs and keep people employed for the betterment of humanity. But inevitably this will occur. but its just scary, practically every job can be done by a robot, and better. So often theres no argument for why they wouldnt replace us..

Saw a program on the Dutch tv last week They were building a house in two days with the use of robots only
Everything was done in a factory by robots
House on site constructed together by robots
Only thing where humans were involved was transport from factory to site finishing the little things in and around the house and the cleaning of the house
It was a test somewhere in China

eeguy · 20-08-2016 03:37PM

crossmolinalad wrote: »

Saw a program on the Dutch tv last week They were building a house in two days with the use of robots only
Everything was done in a factory by robots
House on site constructed together by robots
Only thing where humans were involved was transport from factory to site finishing the little things in and around the house and the cleaning of the house
It was a test somewhere in China

That's the WinSun project?

3d print an block of houses in a matter of days and plumbing and all the rest is installed as the house is being printed.

No idea how strong the structure is, though it's the same material as blocks and cement really.

Chuchote · 20-08-2016 03:39PM

Give it a couple of years and not only will robots be doing your job, they'll be starting rows on boards.ie!

crossmolinalad · 20-08-2016 03:45PM

Its about time for a robot tax for corporations that's going to finance the Dole

riclad · 20-08-2016 03:54PM

Saw a program recently , theres a robot on a truck,
it builds all the walls in a houses.
lays the bricks ,puts glue on them.
no mortar needed .no cement needed .
1000,s of bricklayers could be replaced .
it can build a house in a few days .
theres probably someone making a robot to install doors and windows .
So if 1000,s of builders and drivers are replaced by robots ,
who is gonna pay for houses or buy products .
Even factorys in china are replacing workers who make phones with robots .
Companys rely on workers to buy products and services ,
meanwhile they seem to want to replace as much workers with bots and software as possible .
something does not add up here .
The welfare .pension system works only if x per cent of the population is
working full time .

CelticRambler · 20-08-2016 04:03PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

People habitually break driving standards [speeding, stopping in yellow boxes, pulling out of an oncoming car] in order to speed up their journey ...

TL:DR - driverless won't break laws which people do habitually to help themselves.

In some of London's Tube stations recently, they scrapped the "stand on the right, pass on the left" rule and told people to get on and stay put till they reached the top of the escalator. They shifted something like 30% more commuters by not letting people "help themselves".
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/subway-escalator-standing-study-tfl-london/424950/

josip wrote: »

All it will take will be be the most progressive country to allow it.
Road fatalities/injuries/crashes will plummet in that country.
Pressure will mount in all other countries to emulate.
Within 10 years some country in the world will allow fully autonomous cars everywhere.
Within 20 years every country in the world will allow fully autonomous cars everywhere.
Within 30 years some country in the world will only allow autonomous cars and a special permit will be required for human operated cars.

'Twill evolve a lot faster than that, because once the first "progressive country" allows it, insurance companies will have data that shows human drivers are more to blame for accidents than driverless vehicles, so they'll be justified in whacking a substantial premium on anyone who insists on driving themselves. That'll very quickly wipe out the motivation for anyone to have an old-fashioned car with pedals and steering wheels and gearsticks, especially the family second car that's mostly used for school runs, the morning and evening work commute, going shopping, taking the children to dancing/music/swimming/McD's.

I reckon it'll take less than 10 years from their introduction in any country for autonomous vehicles to be the norm.

eeguy wrote: »

I like the idea of a one seat enclosed motorbike-like pod, with a small space for a bag or a case.
Perfect commuter vehicle for a single driver.

They already have them in La Rochelle - pint-sized electric cars available for anyone to use in exactly the same way as the Dublin Bikes.

Or the Renault Twizy http://www.automobile-propre.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/038-620x413.jpg , offered as a courtesy car by one of our local dealerships.

Chuchote · 20-08-2016 04:07PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

In some of London's Tube stations recently, they scrapped the "stand on the right, pass on the left" rule and told people to get on and stay put till they reached the top of the escalator. They shifted something like 30% more commuters by not letting people "help themselves".
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/01/subway-escalator-standing-study-tfl-london/424950/

Same thing with 30km/h speed limits, the many cities that have this have a faster flow of traffic.

They already have them in La Rochelle - pint-sized electric cars available for anyone to use in exactly the same way as the Dublin Bikes.

Brilliant!

Billy86 · 20-08-2016 04:46PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I say we should tax their profits at 50% say, instead of at 12% or thereabouts as currently.

Great! One thing though... what do you propose doing to replace the thousands of jobs that would wipe out almost overnight?

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 04:55PM

How would that wipe out jobs?

Tax is taken at the very end, after all expenses have been paid.

What difference does it make to the company if they pay 10% tax, or 50% tax?

It's all profit.

Should society be allowed to fail because of this argument?

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 04:55PM

How would that wipe out jobs?

Tax is taken at the very end, after all expenses have been paid.

What difference does it make to the company if they pay 10% tax, or 50% tax?

It's all profit.

Should society be allowed to fail because of this argument?

riclad · 20-08-2016 05:00PM

Maybe in 10 years time you can drive if you want, the insurance on self drive cars will be 50 per cent of a manual drive car .
Companys move to low tax countrys ,increasing company tax,s will just
reduce the amount of tax revenue .
for each builder or truck driver theres another 2 workers who work in cafe,s , garages ,shops to support them.
Or rely on them as customers .
And all those workers pay tax and prsi into the welfare system.
Do you think google or facebook will stay in ireland if they have to pay 40 extra tax ?
versus say 15 per cent tax in wales or poland .

Billy86 · 20-08-2016 05:01PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

How would that wipe out jobs?

Tax is taken at the very end, after all expenses have been paid.

What difference does it make to the company if they pay 10% tax, or 50% tax?

It's all profit.

Should society be allowed to fail because of this argument?

It would wipe out jobs because before you're finished telling these companies that you've increased their tax rate from 12% to 50, they'll be packing up and moving to somewhere with a tax rate that suits them better, and taking the jobs with them. Doing that without having the ability to replace those jobs almost immediately would be suicide.

starshine1234 · 20-08-2016 05:22PM

I agree that companies moving elsewhere is a problem.

But that indicates perfectly how greedy these companies are.

They should be publically shamed for their greed, as I suggested, and that should be publically led by politicians.

If companies act like children and say they will move countries simply because they are required to pay tax, they are not the type of companies we want.

People should cop on and realise that if we allow companies to pay no tax then our societies will fail and there will be chaos.

Address that last point please.

Either companies pay tax to support the societies they prey on or else we will have chaos and wars.

El Hombre · 20-08-2016 07:57PM

I'd love to know how you would pay a universal income along with pensions and every other government service from Garda resources to back to education grants from forcing a fee thousand companies to pay extra tax

El Hombre · 20-08-2016 08:00PM

In fact I wonder may it get to a stage where there might be an international treaty signed to limit autonomous tech due to large scale society breakdown?

hatrickpatrick · 20-08-2016 08:03PM

I find it funny how so many people regard automation as a bad thing. Obviously automation is replacing human labour - that's the whole point. The ideal end game is a scenario in which automation reduces the cost of living by so much that working hours across the board can be greatly reduced.

It only becomes a f*ck up if income inequality isn't tackled before the automation event horizon is reached.

Chuchote · 20-08-2016 08:08PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I find it funny how so many people regard automation as a bad thing. Obviously automation is replacing human labour - that's the whole point. The ideal end game is a scenario in which automation reduces the cost of living by so much that working hours across the board can be greatly reduced.

It only becomes a f*ck up if income inequality isn't tackled before the automation event horizon is reached.

Do I hear an echo from the days of the giant factories? "Honestly, weavers won't be put out of work, this will be fantastic!"

The beginning of the end for taxi drivers

Comments