[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 6 points 7 hours ago

Does this have to do with safety regulations or something? Like what is the reasoning behind it? Because I heard these Chinese cars dont have good safety regulations

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago

i mean they're gonna charge whatever makes them the most profit regardless

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago

they'll charge whatever's most profitable but if two self driving transportation companies are in competition with each other and they both want to dominate the market, one might set their prices lower than the other to steal the market share. the only way that wouldn't happen is with two monopolies agreeing to not undercut each other, which happens. but in general when a company has lower operational costs their goods will cost less too.

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 points 8 hours ago

how would you shift suburbs into walkabout cities and neighborhoods? personally i live in a suburb and i like it. but assuming they do suck, how would you transition already created suburbs into a walkable city? personally i think having the option to live in a suburb and being able to own your own car or in the future rent a self driving car would be preferred to having to live in a city.

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 1 points 9 hours ago

i agree it's a valid concern. but i don't think the solution to not getting a reduction in work hours is to halt technological progress. i personally like andrew yangs idea. instead of halting progress we put a tax on the robots that replace our jobs and use the money generated to give back to the people. andrew yang supported a universal basic income program. there's a couple routes we can go. one is to halt the technological progress and keep the jobs that are currently here. that is status quo and personally it's not the worse outcome, but it's also not the best outcome. i'd rate it average, just staying where we are. (average scenario)

there's option number 2. we allow the technological progress but don't put any new taxes or regulations in place to let the new technological progress benefit the people. people lose their jobs and are not subsidized after losing their jobs and end up jobless, with no money, worse off than they were, while the rich tech people take even more profit than they've ever made before. goods will be produced at a much cheaper and more rapid rate, but less people will be able to afford their or basic living on their own. goods might also become cheaper because of the increase in supply and the lower cost of goods, but it doesn't make up for the amount of money or meaning lost in people's lives where they're jobless and have no source of income. (worst case scenario)

and then there's option 3, we allow the technological progress, but we regulate it and put taxes on the companies and corporations that profit from the new automation and machines. the money goes to the corporations partially, but a large chunk of it also goes to the people. in this scenario goods are produced cheaper, people that lose their jobs don't lose as much value because they still get compensated through the taxing and spreading of wealth, and jobs that are repetitive and menial end up getting done by robots while more meaningful jobs that robots can't do continue to be done by humans. (best case scenario)

personally i like option 3. i'd love to see self driving cars replace ubers, truck drivers, etc. i'd love to see fast food workers replaced by machines. all those shitty jobs that pay shit anyway and nobody wants to do get replaced by robots, and the people that lose those jobs still get compensated so they have a salary to live on.

what we've been doing is option 2, which is probably the worst case scenario. we need to move to option 3. more productivity is always good, we just need to spread the gains of our productivity to the people. you should look up andrew yang if you want to know more about this type of solution. the fact is though it's not going to come by just trusting to corporations to tax themselves and spread their gains amongst the people, we need to elect someone that will enforce it. just like nobody would pay taxes in general if they didn't have to.

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago

i agree with you they would try to profit more, (they're a business so of course). but i think lowering operational costs allows them to lower their prices too, while also profiting more. we need a good way to ensure monopolies don't just all agree to set a standard price and not compete with each other, i haven't thought of one yet except outright monopoly busting. but i do think in general lowering costs to create goods allows goods to be cheaper especially when they're facing and trying to undercut other competitors/competition.

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago

it'd be more than thousands of people. but the thing is, when productivity is increased and more wealth is generated and people aren't needed to do certain jobs anymore we have more free time or time to focus on stuff that we like or stuff that's more productive like other work, that's a good thing. the problem is when that excess wealth is generated it only going in the hands of the few. i would say it would be a good idea to tax the robots that start replacing jobs so that the wealth is spread amongst the people that lost their jobs and not just into the hands of the wealthy few. andrew yang talked about this a lot back in 2020 and a lot of what he predicted came true. he proposed a universal basic income to help redistribute wealth.

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago

i think people should still be allowed to own their own cars, but getting rid of the need to own cars with cheap self driving transportation as an option sounds good to me. more options is always better. not everyone can afford to own their own car either. and if it also reduces deaths because self driving cars are better at driving it will also be a public service.

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 11 points 11 hours ago

it seems like half the people here are here from being banned off reddit though.

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 9 points 12 hours ago

interesting. thank you. when i was on reddit i would go to r/debate r/changemyview and subreddits like that where i could have discussions. are there lemmy subreddits for debates cause i'm not really finding any. thanks for the reply. on the plus side, of the two comments i left on lemmy they both got replies, so i was glad it wasn't like twitter where you leave a comment on a large post and nobody interacts with 99% of your comments there. that's nice and part of what i liked about reddit. good to know lemmy has people replying to each other here too.

[-] Coke@lemmy.zip 20 points 13 hours ago

just came to this site after getting banned off reddit.. it has some nice features.. BUT idk if i understand it correctly or not. i'm on lemmy.zip, if a subreddit on here isn't bundled with together with my lemmy server will i not see it? will i still be able to interact with it? curious how it works.

view more: next ›

Coke

joined 16 hours ago