Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle revolution. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/technology/driverless-car... This is similar to how the huge army of people stuffing DVDs into envelopes at Netflix is going away. It might be slow, but I don't think there will be tons of people watching DVDs from them in 2030... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/23/netflix-dvd-business-still-a...
> It's sustainable because we're on the cusp of the autonomous vehicle revolution. We still have drivers on subway trains. When those drivers lose jobs to autonomy, maybe we can think about being on the cusp. Until then, I see it as a fantastic story that can be used to milk VCs for cash. At <$4/hour, it's a better investment to automate a fast food restaurant like McDonald's or Burger King. They pay twice as much fo…
Also, subway systems are monopolies with strong drivers' unions. Subway managers have no strong financial incentive to reduce costs because the taxpayer foots the bill. In contrast, if Uber doesn't produce a driverless taxi service soon its management will be fired and will miss out on billions of dollars in bonuses.
I think we'll see driverless public taxis in Phoenix before we see driverless subway trains in New York. Self-driving trains are technically easier to develop, but self-driving cars will win thanks to the efficiencies of the free market.