And the point is this study assumes itd be possible to retrain those people

But when you look at what's happened in the past, retraining is never that successful

Andrew really isn't overexaggerating

except andrew really is a retard

They never really tell you how exactly it's going to get displaced

just spit out some bullshit numbers

@The Lemon If you watch the video I linked, Andrew (not yang, the senior political analyst at DWR ) addresses the truck driver issue

But, to put it simply, automation of trucking is nowhere near being commonplace and even if it did, these trucks would steal need a driver, just one capable of handling the truck's automated systems. Think of how airplanes have autopilot, but still require pilots.

Ok I was just looking at the study cited in that video and it says this

This also

What is says basically is that only 3.8 mill actual truckers will lose their jobs but up to 12 million people who do work in other parts of the industry will also lose their jobs

That dosen't sound like its not going to be a problem at all like the video you sent says

again you retard

how the fuck do they support people will lose their jobs

the study is pulling numbers out of their ass

Also the guy in the video says "Work will be enhanced rather than lost" but he dosen't say how

It says here how they got the numbers

@Techpriest

Also interestingly the study says these are the areas that are likely to expand due to AVs

As I said before, all of these are highly skilled jobs which are going to require education

The people who are losing their jobs due to displacement from AVs are not going to be able to suddenly jump into these jobs

And these are the jobs that do the "handling of the truck's automated systems" just like you said @Billcat

Its also worth noting how this study cites a number for the amount of money that would go into the economy but it doesn't cite a number for the number of jobs that would potentially be created

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...