But since this study is pro-AV

you would have thought they'd show the number of jobs that could potentially be created if it supported their narrative right

But they don't

What does that tell you?

There's going to be a large economic benefit in terms of GDP and other measures of the economy which are simmilar but that does not necessarily translate into more jobs

I'd suggest reading a source before you reference it next time @Billcat

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/

It's a good source on the Luddite Fallacy

I know about the luddite falacy

But that dosen't necessarily apply to this wave of automation

Because previously the jobs that have been created have been replaced in equal number and have been of a simillar skill level

But as I've said already multiple times

There will not necessarily be nearly as many jobs created as will be lost and the people who are losing jobs are not going to be able to go into the new professions created

And if we want to increase social mobility and allow for a more dynamic economy where people have the financial ability to re train to do different jobs the perfect way to do it is a Universal basic income

If you want to see my main issues with the UBI you should look in <#514097283760128030> I posted something there yesterday.

<#513098448640278539>*

I can't see anything in there...

You were just talking about tarriffs

Sup

Was eating, will respond in a moment

Smells like up dog in here

Oof *Looks like a toddler up in here*

What’s a toddler

...

Then u say it what u r and we laugh

Are you explaining a set up for the joke?

You: looks like a toddler up in here
Me: what’s a Toddler
You: it’s what u r

No... just no

GG @Cristian Ledford, you just advanced to level 1!

Ok, so to start off, nowhere does that study say "3.8 million people will lose their jobs." *You* are the one making that claim, the study simply says they will be impacted. And no, unlike the claim you are apparently pulling out of thin air, monitoring the self driving truck is not a high skilled job. Companies will want to retain their current drivers and simply retrain them (since they have extensive industry experience) to adapt to this new role, the video cites to this around 6:55. So, to answer the question Yang proposed of "What do you retrain these truckers for?" *To manage the self driving trucks*

And, once again, please explain how you reached the conclusion that 12 million people will lose their jobs. Because, once again, a company would rather provide training for truckers who already have experience instead of replacing them. Not to mention, the future vision you have of self driving or automated vehicles zipping down the road is still a ways off. The most we can expect to see in near times are semi automated vehicles.

And the reason the video never mentioned the number of jobs possibly created however many years in the future is because it is a response video to Andrew Yang's proposal of UBI, which, you have stilled not addressed the fact that it would cost around 3.045 trillion a year.

So, in conclusion, I find it highly ironic that you tell me I should "read the source before I reference it" when you willingly misrepresented what the source is actually saying and apparently did not understand what the video I cited was responding to, ***even though it is in the title***

@The Lemon

And, furthermore, even if everything you said was true, and 12 million people associated with the trucking industry *alone* lost their jobs in the coming x amount of years, there would still be other employment prospects for them, and even if their wasn't, UBI is outlandish and nowhere near economically viable. We would spent something like nearly 5 times the amount to give each adult $1,000 a month then we do on the military

I mean you yourself compared the jobs to flying a plane, are you trying to tell me that's a low skilled job?

I compared them not because driving a car is the same as driving a plane, I compared them because automation in this context is never truly "autonomous"

For the foreseeable future there will always be the need for human interaction.

yo

.

<:yus:538083968881524747>

ok what is the topic, buraz?