Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pfhreak | Hacker News Reader

If Waymo is successful, there are potentially massive impacts to the population of the US. Trucking is a major industry.

The Luddites weren't mad about the advancement of technology, they didn't destroy looms out of religious or anti-technological ideals. Many of them were skilled loom operators. They were squeezed out of their jobs by the race to the bottom, and they were angry that there wasn't any consideration for the paradigm shift they were experiencing.

If Waymo turns trucking into an automated business (or even just reduces the number of humans needed to haul cargo), we could be in for a similar situation. I wonder what Waymo is doing to help support the existing drivers, regulating how we should care for the many millions of humans this could impact, etc.

I believe automated vehicles will someday be safer and more desirable, but we need to ensure that they aren't also the villains in the disenfranchisement of millions of people.

View on HN

This is the problem of modern democracies in a nutshell. We saw the same thing with free trade. International free trade and movement of capital is claimed to increase the overall wealth of a nation whilst massively negatively impacting a small portion of the population (outsourcing clothing manufacturing gives everyone cheaper clothes but makes clothing factory workers in 1st world countries redundant). The huge corporations that profit the most from these new economies of scale and international competition then lobby to reduce social safety nets and standards so the exact people who were negatively impacted by these changes receive no help to get themselves back on their feet.

If it really is true that these changes massively increase the general wealth then it would seem trivial for governments to step in, take a small cut and put it towards retraining, re-employing and retiring these workers. Yet it very rarely happens.

A big part of government duty in capitalism (and often forgotten) is to keep a level playing field. That is what capitalism thrives on, competition but restricted to stop powerful groups exploiting others.

And I think this is important if we want to continue in free trade. We need to do things like have better requirements for pollution, global worker treatment rules and all sort of things so countries aren't competing on who can abuse people/enviroment the most, but on innovation and skill set. Further I think we need some global consensus on minimum tax rates. These aren't traditionally in the WTO as far as I know but feel they need to be working in in the future to create something closer to a level playing field to be part of any trading block.

Capitalism goes as far as making sure there are at least two competitors in a space, and with all of the companies going at self-driving trucks there won't be a problem there. Other than that, the goal of capitalism is to give consumers [big box stores] the best possible product [Delivery trucks] at the lowest possible prices [not having to pay a human 50k/yr].

> Capitalism goes as far as making sure there are at least two competitors in a space

There is no absolute truth here but I would say generally that is not true and it is encouraged to be more than a few companies, but is increasing allowed today.

Typically Oligopolies are frowned upon but there is often 1) Industry categories that seem to be how they are and 2) With increasing business influence in politics this is less regulated today than previous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

Why is it Waymo's job to take care of displaced drivers? Microsoft didn't have to take care of displaced secretaries.

If it becomes a problem, this sounds like something for the government.

I hope the government does, but I also think it's in Waymo's best interest. We're not talking about a closet industry here, trucking employees ~8 million Americans, and probably supports many, many more than that.

You've seen the fuss over coal miners in the States as of late? There are ~50,000 coal miners. At its peak, coal mining was less than a million miners. The potential civil unrest from disrupting trucking could be a big deal. From insolvency of truckers who bought their own (now obsolete) equipment to demagoguery of politicians trying to soothe an angry group of people.

I doubt it'll be a like a light switch where one day there were no Waymo trucks, and the next day there are no conventional trucks.

It will likely be much closer to how Uber disrupted the Taxi Medallion market. You don't hear many people saying, "But think of the poor Taxi Medallion owners." But -- actually -- that was worse. It's literally a piece of paper.

If you buy a truck today, and self-driving trucks are a thing tomorrow -- you still have truck that's likely still holds most of its value.

Coal miners didn't just light switch off either. And I definitely heard people saying, "Think of the taxi drivers" (which I know is technically different from the medallion owners).

Part of the reason few people said "think of the poor medallion owners" is because the whole medallion system was a deeply corrupt racket run by organized crime.

These concerns are always overblown. The switch to autonomous vehicles isn't happening overnight. It'll be a generational change, and the current drivers will simply retire. If there's a young kid today who is dreaming of growing up and becoming a truck driver - yeah he's in trouble.

The problem is no one is saying not to get in to these industries. In fact quite often there are posts on forums and even on HN stating how you should become a truck driver or coal miner because it pays well and doesn't require education.

Depends on how fast it happens. Long-haul trucking is the most easily automated driving, and it has the strongest financial incentive. The lifespan of a semi truck is ~15 years, while the career of a trucker will be 40 years. Even if 2/3rds of truckers retire before automation hurts them, that still would leave us with more than a million long-term unemployed.

I imagine last-mile driving on regular roads might be as big a hurdle here as it is for parcel delivery.

Only if they automate it. But they don't have to. They could have local drivers rendezvous with long-haul trucks as they get close to destination cities. That would still let them cut their labor costs by 90%.

>If Waymo is successful, there are potentially massive impacts to the population of the US. Trucking is a major industry.

Certainly, but we don't know if it will be positive or negative. Some studies[0] show increases in human truck driver employment with long-haul being fully automated (plus the work seems nicer).

[0]https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/uber-...

The source for that article has been deleted. Additionally, the study was performed by Uber, who has an incentive to suggest that automating vehicles is a good thing.

If you have other sources, I'd be happy to take a look.

I hadn't heard that description of the mentality of Luddites before. Thanks for bringing that up.

It may be different for trucking for a few reasons

1) apparently there is a huge shortage of truckers in the US currently

2) autonomous driving may be great for highway today, but seems to still be a bit away from truly autonomous for city environments. This could lead to a hub & spoke structure which keeps truckers employed, but has them taking over for more local routes.

3) As I understand it, a mechanical weave was always significantly faster than a person, and cheaper to boot. An autonomous truck doesn't get to drive faster (yet), and doesn't burn less fuel. It's efficiency comes only from replacing the person behind the wheel. If the person behind the wheel owns the truck (which is common) it may make their work easier.

4) how many people these days are wanting to become truckers? As truckers retire, and we seem to be requiring more and more shipping (an entirely different issue), could this be a managed transition over 20 years?

Re 3: humans have required breaks, machines don’t. So they’re effectively driving faster per trip.

definitely a good point, I was considering more of a hybrid approach where a driver exists but some of the driving is done autonomously. We're close to that now.

Also, trucks still need to refuel, so breaks are still required.

Did car companies have to support blacksmiths, especially the ones skilled at shoeing horses? Airlines aren’t forced to subsidise railways. Innovators aren’t obligated to support the industries that they supplant.

I didn't say have to.

But consider that there are probably 10 million+ Americans who rely on trucking/trucker incomes. If a significant portion of them are put out of work, it's a recipe for massive civil unrest. Not to mention the impact to our stretched social safety nets.

Waymo doesn't have to do anything here, sure, but if they don't then I'd expect we see Luddite 2.0.

I personally think that innovation should be done ethically, that you should proceed forward, but don't be blind to the impact you could have.

Trucking will go the same way - it is far more efficient (and allows you to grow faster), therefore market pressure will drive every trucking company to autonomous.

Yes. This is exactly my concern. Long term, I expect we're all better off, but we cannot just look at the present and the long term, we need to understand how disruptive it will be in the interim and make sure we're supporting the humans that are currently doing the work.

> "If Waymo turns trucking into an automated business (or even just reduces the number of humans needed to haul cargo), we could be in for a similar situation."

Sure.

Tuning in to last week's news - "Mass layoffs reported after Starsky Robotics fails to find buyer, investors" [0]. Starsky had a demonstrable path to "reduce the number of humans needed to haul cargo". What gives?

[0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22420147

I'm not sure if drivers will be completely eradicated, though. The vehicle may still have an operator for non-highway situations, and given there's already a shortage in truck drivers, perhaps the career will slowly ramp down as automation slowly ramps up. I used to think SDC and automation would be fast and furious, but the opposite has occurred so far.

Sure. In the Luddite's case the number of workers wasn't dropped to zero either, but it did mean they could hire fewer, less qualified workers. I suspect the qualifications and pay for trucking minders will be different than current truck drivers.

Maybe it'll be slow enough that we naturally see less demand gradually. But we should still have a plan for those folks in case it's rapid.

https://classic.qz.com/machines-with-brains/1017379/these-ar...

“what Waymo is doing to help support the existing drivers, ”

Waymo should be doing nothing. Companies should work on improving technology. The problem is to distribute the gains. That’s what social safety nets are for. And progressive taxation should help to distribute gains from technological progress widely instead instead of only to a few capitalists. I am aware that this may be an unpopular opinion.

I mean, totally. Gimme that progressive tax structure and strong social safety net any day of the year. But that sounds like a harder problem to solve in the US than autonomous driving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com