A Theory
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Jobs lost to driverless cars and ambulances will be partially offset by employment gains in the body shop business and emergency rooms. Driverless ambulances should to some extent generate their own clients. There will be some incentive to replace human EMTs with robots, as there can be no question that robotic EMT workers will be just as good as their human counterparts in not reviving people after they have been dead 15 minutes.
Last edited:
Exactly, the poor should use their 'free choice' to choose to become a wealthy real estate investor. Or even better! A Star NFL Quarterback.
What does that have to do with driverless cars?
choice examples... .. i don't think you understand how important it really is to have the "market test" on peoples decisions... its that or tyrannical government.
I would not worry about that. Each time something new comes out it kills jobs in one sector and creates job in other sector. Self-driving cars will require maintenance, there will be maintenance shop. There will be charging stations - self-driving cars should be charged or furled somewhere. There will be inspectors - self-driving car should be inspected on regular basis before going on the roads. There will be demand on software technicians to upgrade the soft and maps on cars. This is just a small list what kind of new job will be created.
Yes, it will hit the immigrants, especially those who does not report their taxi income to avoid taxes.
In addition it is still a long way to go. The legal basis for self-driving cars is still not ready an we know how fast our Government is in this questions. Plus there is still a lot of people who likes driving and who likes fast cars.
What I am interested is whether it is going to be illegal to be drunk in self-driving car. What if I am drunk and i have a ride in my own self-driving car? Is it the same as I am drunk in a taxi?
Trump has created more jobs for Americans than the last 20 US presidents combined. Who has benefited from the millions of dollars the Clinton family has amassed?
If we can be serious for a moment, I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment as you have expressed it above. I don't however agree with a similar and related sentiment expressed as you did in your prior post. The reason is straight forward: Choice is precluded by circumstances. So to imply that someone has free choice is to gloss over the reality that choice is extremely limited by circumstances beyond ones control in the majority of situations where a seemingly bad choice has been made. So opportunity must be increased of course, but that's not nearly as important as improving circumstances. The latter is not being addressed effectively. (And you can't do that with the usual welfare as meted out in the U.S. In fact much of that is counter productive.)
For most people, free choice is a myth.
Last edited:
But what about "The Home of the Brave?"