I haven't read all 400-some comments, but in the several pages worth i read I haven't seen a single person mention looking out for their own welfare and keeping their future in their own hands. Just because a line of work has been around for decades doesnt mean it is always going to be a safe bet. I've worked hard for the past 10 years to get to my middling-middle class income. Enough with my wife's to support our fa…
Bro, you're a hero. Change is the only constant and you're wise to prepare for it. I wish you and your family the best.
Haven't we had revolutions in the last 150 years? Not in the US, but other countries had a few. But that's not the point. You don't need an armed uprising when you have elections. You need populism. Trump / Brexit / far right parties are not "revolution".
> Haven't we had revolutions in the last 150 years? Not in the US, but other countries had a few. Yes, and it worked out so wonderfully for them. :)
I had an unpleasant Uber experience a few months ago where my driver illegally drove in a bike lane to make a right turn at a light, cutting off another car at the light that was legally trying to proceed right. The two drivers got into a verbal altercation that lasted for another light, and then my driver was ranting about it for the rest of the entire drive. I got the feeling that the Uber driver used to be a yello…
illegally drove in a bike lane to make a right turn at a light, cutting off another car at the light that was legally trying to proceed right Diverging off-topic, and your account is light on specifics needed for this divergence... http://pedalfortcollins.com/righthandturns/
Good point. Rules of the road regarding right turns and bike lanes vary depending on jurisdiction. But even though your link was for Colorado and I'm in northern Europe, the rule is the same: a right-turning car actually should merge into bike lane.
So, sometimes it could be that the Uber (or taxi) driver knows more about the rules of the road that the passenger, and when the passenger complains based on wrong understanding of traffic law, it's not an easy customer-serving situation.
This is a pretty surreal move: >The law says the money will help taxi businesses to adopt "new technologies and advanced service, safety and operational capabilities" and to support workforce development... [Larry Meister, manager of the Boston area's Independent Taxi Operator's Association] said the money could go toward improving a smartphone app his association has started using, or to other big needs. I'm not an…
> I don't want to see cab drivers turn into homeless drifters, but this just seems wrong.
> putting a burden on something productive just because it is better What aspect of Uber is better than a regular taxi? I can hail taxis from my phone just as well. They take me to the destination. I think Uber found a way to subsidize their fleet with drivers own cars and not pay some taxes to the state which the regular taxi drivers have to pay. Maybe I am missing something...
Yep, I don't get it either. taxi |ˈtaksi| noun ( pl. taxis ) a motor vehicle licensed to transport passengers in return for payment of a fare and typically fitted with a taximeter. Uber is a taxi service. Uber _is_ licensed in the sense that they are allowed to operate. Saying Uber isn't a taxi service is a load of dingos kidneys, in my arrogant opinion.
Regulations typically distinguish taxis, which can pick up street hails, from car/bus/limo services, which are pre-arranged or pre-scheduled. Bus and limo drivers also "drive people for money" (and even for buses, sometimes charge by distance), but aren't subject to taxi regs.
And that's not an arbitrary distinction: much of the danger and public interest in cans arises from grabbing randos off the street. As car/limo services track that info remotely, they merit correspondingly less regulation.
If the taxi cab companies can't make it on their own, they should go out of business. As a self-employed person, I shouldn't expect someone else to bail me out by their efforts. If I can't make it on my own steam, I close up shop. When this happens, it's unfortunate, and unpleasant, but it's a simple fact of doing business. Our parents and grandparents would balk and roll in their graves at the thought of this idea t…
> Our parents and grandparents would balk and roll in their graves at the thought of this idea that someone else should shoulder the burden of bailing you out. That's definitely not true. People have been kicking and screaming (and regulating) against being obsoleted by technology since literally the beginning of industrialization, and even earlier if you broaden that to "obsoleted by a change in market conditions".…
Industrialization didn't end up with a net loss of jobs. It ended up with a change and retooling of jobs.
This hasn't changed with the advance of technology. We just have to figure out the how, and where, and what of this change. You know... be resilient, like we are as humanity.
That's not to say it's going to be easy, and I'm not trying to over-simplify things. It will be HARD, but it is POSSIBLE.
One of the things I'm advocating for is to try and figure out the challenge yourself rather than ask for a bailout. Personally, I don't think that is unreasonable.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Information is plentiful for us. Probably not nearly as much for previous generations.
Why do you think that? Isn't that similar to how labour and income evolved since the industrial revolution?
So you would really destroy the fishing rod in my original example?
No. I'm not criticising innovation here, but what I tried was to extend your analogy represent it's development more accurately. Some jobs will abruptly die in the coming future, and some people will become unemployed. Up until recently this happened slowly, i.e. it took its time, occupations lost their members one by one, until they had a handful, then only one, then they passed away, left the place to newcomers. But now it's happening more abruptly. In the course of years taxis, an established, centuries old occupation, is becoming obsolete, along with other occupations. If people become unemployed quickly and in bulk without the chance to transition, the transition will happen, but way more troublesome. Innovation will happen, but we must make sure that we won't ruin lifes for it to happen, and account for its consequences, negative or positive.
There are neither income taxes nor property taxes to be paid on rabbits or handmade items.
I don't think there are any jurisdictions that are free of property taxes. How would you pay those?
The idea of the commons was, property that was everybody's. Today's equivalent might be a state or national park. So, forage in the State Park for rabbits while you wait for a better job.
>If overall quality of life increases, I am personally unconcerned with income inequality. Rising inequality generally hasn't improved quality-of-life for everyone.
Of course it harms the person at the very bottom of the stack. But, would you rather live as a 10th percentile American today, a 50th percentile serf in feudal England, a 50th percentile American colonist, or even a 50th percentile American in the 1950s? It's only the very last that's even close, IMO.
I think that in order to answer that question, you have to know how steeply well-being falls with reduced income. The poorest and least egalitarian counties in the United States today, for instance, tend to have life-expectancies below those of many Third World countries. Overly severe inequality really seems to make it so there's no bottom to the barrel to hit!