Hacker News Reader

Comment by close04 | Hacker News Reader

> Moving humans from lower to higher complexity tasks generally correlates to increased productivity, higher efficiency, or "getting more with less." Generally, this leads to a wealthier society and other positive things.

This is the idealistic take. What's your practical take for moving hundreds of thousands if not millions of people from truck driving jobs to higher complexity tasks? Do those jobs exist today and truckers just refuse to take the step up? Are we creating new jobs that are just the right amount of "more complex" to be realistic for a truck driver?

In a world where AI is doing away exactly with the lower complexity jobs, how are we bridging the gap between the average skill level and expertise of a trucker compared to high enough complexity job that keeps them safe from being replaced by AI in 5 years? What's the reskilling or upskilling plan for these people's skills and career to advance at a faster pace than AI is catching up?

View on HN

Some will retire early.

Some will take on more and more of the much more complex logistics jobs like delicate loads, large loads, etc.

Some will switch professions.

Some will go to school to switch professions.

Some new professions will open up exactly because it will become cheaper to move stuff by truck. For example, if a business can now afford to move X to their location, now they can do more business. Perhaps that business hires former truck drivers.

At the risk of repeating myself, this is the idealistic take and even that only until you give it the slightest bit of though. Standing by this take after the realistic questions were asked also makes it an ignorant take.

3 million truckers in the US alone. Retire early? To live on what, the wealth accumulated in not even a full lifetime of trucking? Go to school? Who pays for it, who supports the person/family while they go to school, and what are the odds that the skill set increases so drastically that AI/automation won't just catch up with them in a couple of years? "Just" switch professions? If there was a better one they would have done it already, so they can only switch for the worse.

By various estimates half+ of truckers leave within their first year, so your thesis is what, that they are voluntarily switching for the worse?

Given the massive number of new drivers and that half+ of them are voluntarily switching to new jobs your whole thesis here is total bunk that they can only switch for the worse.

Trucking is one of those industries where even worse than most others recruiters lie, cheat, and steal their way into getting people into the industry and as soon as they're in they mostly find there really are greener pastures elsewhere.

> half+ of them are voluntarily switching to new jobs

Are they more complex task jobs? I rejected OP's theory because no evidence was put forward that drivers will just move to "higher complexity tasks". Are they? Are we creating a constant stream of higher complexity task jobs that truckers can routinely reach with moderate upskilling and which aren't at risk of being automated in a couple of years?

We have millions of jobs which haven't changed in years skills wise and are somewhere on the bottom rungs of job quality. Yes trucking is bad, but even "just" 1.5 million people doing this for years means they have no realistically better career option. There are 50% more truckers now than 20 years ago. So we haven't really created all that many "higher complexity task jobs" so far, we just created more of the same.

When the bottom falls out on this one, it falls all at once. The moment automation comes for one trucking job, it comes for all. There will be no bargaining power, there will be just "accept even worse conditions or take a hike". Automation doesn't fix their problem, it fixes yours: stuff's cheaper. Is your theory also that all those people will just magically get better jobs like stated here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44114878

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44115072

Is the theory bunk because you jumped straight in the middle of the thread? Or because it doesn't give you the good feelies? I'm not saying it's all doom and gloom. But let's not pretend it's all roses either. We'll get cheaper stuff, and maybe the next generation of people will have better than just trucking jobs, and all it will cost is that most of the current generation of truckers will get screwed worse.

> This is the idealistic take. What's your practical take for moving hundreds of thousands if not millions of people from truck driving jobs to higher complexity tasks?

There isn't one, and there won't be one in the USA for the foreseeable future.

This country's people and majority governments have no issue in throwing people away, with no backup or contingency plans. Sector falls over? Too bad, go back to school (and spend MORE money), or live under a bridge.

But when a company sector falls over, they get government subsidies to tide them over till they create the next fallout.

And this isn't just a 'hate on republicans' or 'hate on democrats' thing. All elected parties share this attribute. R's just remove programs, and D's just means-test them to hell and back... But only for the individuals. Companies get free money (PPP), and have it forgiven.

Its unabashed capitalism for the populace, and socialism for the companies. And that absolutely means that people removed from trucking jobs will have absolutely nowhere to turn, unless they make their exit plan themselves.

> or live under a bridge.

But also don't live under a bridge, because that's illegal.

In fact, just don't be poor. Being poor may not be illegal yet, but it damn well oughtta be! And we're certainly going to make it as hard and grinding and cruel as we possibly can to be poor, because being poor is proof of low moral character. After all, if you were a good person, God would have made you rich, like Elon Musk!

Basically, if you can't get and keep a job, just go and die like a good peasant.

(/s, because sadly that always needs saying)

Which president started the PPP loan program again?

Trump started it, and Biden forgave almost all of it. But you knew that, and just playing gotcha games.

Again, it was a massive example of 'Socialism for the rich and unabashed capitalism for the poor'. BOTH PARTIES DO THIS.

The only major positive change I've seen in this government in the last 2 decades that had a strong positive impact on the people, was the ACA. And in of itself was a federalized version of Romney's healthcare. And that was the Heritage Foundation's response for healthcare when Hillary Clinton put forth a single payer in 1995 as first lady.

But even with the ACA, it ended more up to being a corporate freebie to medical insurance companies. And only secondarily, did it start helping people.

But back to robo-semis: those people are already leaving due to tarrifs destroying shipping. And when workers are completely displaced to robotrucks being better than human drivers, there will be no relief for those displaced humans.

This country relies on sacrificing people for a narrower group to get ahead. And those who are behind are then summarily blamed for being behind, as 'poor individual choices', even if the root is completely systemic.

More people will suffer. More people will become homeless. But hey, some truck AI company will make money hand over fist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com