EZ pass lanes are not a good example because they require very few employees relative to the number of cars, at least on high-traffic roads like Golden Gate. So those can be eliminated without impacting a large number of jobs, and at significant benefit to all drivers.
A better example would be replacing all baristas with robots, or truck drivers with self-driving trucks. Those would have massive negative impact on employment and society in general, while bringing huge returns to some lucky corporate winners, in effect a massive transfer of wealth from workers to shareholders.
All that to say, the US definitely needs more unions.
Per the article [1], the same ILA union president was previously against EZ Pass.
Baristas provide a point of human contact and socialization which cannot be automated while preserving humanity. Truck driving can, and it’s an isolated job. Automating it would lower shipping costs, which lowers inflation, enables faster turnaround since robots don’t need to sleep, improve safety (theoretically) because robots don’t get tired and robots don’t take amphetamines to work crazy schedules, and can be programmed to respect speed limits etc.
Now that said, truck driving is also an absolutely huge job source. To replace that would be to kill of a decent income for a huge percent of the population. More important than a union, we need to have government/policy handle any massive workforce transition.
Yes, I like that I don’t have to order things in person anymore, just use the web, an app, or a kiosk. I’m not sure I’m in the minority either, but that’s for the entrepreneurs to figure out.
> All that to say, the US definitely needs more unions.
What do unions have to do with industries where not many humans are needed. If you use unions to protect legacy jobs, in the long run investors will just stop investing in them (or let their investments wither as they withdraw capital) and invest in new industries where unions haven’t stuck their hands in things yet. So goodbye cafes, hello drones delivering coffee via your chimney or something (no barista job was replaced by a robot, they just replaced the entire industry instead). You can’t distort the cost of labor for too long without strong government control over the economy; better to just spread the benefits of automation out more evenly via corporate rather than labor taxation (to fund UBI, universal healthcare, etc…).
>A better example would be replacing all baristas with robots, or truck drivers with self-driving trucks.
For something less speculative, how about elevator attendants? Needing one in every elevator equates to a massive workforce, probably bigger than dock workers. Why shouldn't we bring those back aside from status quo bias?
> while bringing huge returns to some lucky corporate winners, in effect a massive transfer of wealth from workers to shareholders.
Everyone else would also benefit from cheaper espressos and goods (through cheaper shipping)
we're well on our way to replacing truck drivers; baristas are probably safer due to social acceptance more than technology
> Needing one in every elevator equates to a massive workforce, probably bigger than dock workers.
Back when elevators required an attendant, there weren't that many elevators compared with today. I'm talking about displacing large existing workforces. Also, people wouldn't spend their lives standing in an elevator; whereas millions of people do make a career out of truck driving or working at a port, both of which require skills developed over time.
> Everyone else would also benefit from cheaper espressos and goods (through cheaper shipping)
That's assuming the price of espressos and goods would drop; I don't think that's likely.
>Back when elevators required an attendant, there weren't that many elevators compared with today. I'm talking about displacing large existing workforces.
Sounds a lot like status quo bias. If you think truck drivers are worth keeping around as long as a jobs program, you should be in favor of introducing elevator attendants as one as well.
>Also, people wouldn't spend their lives standing in an elevator; whereas millions of people do make a career out of truck driving or working at a port, both of which require skills developed over time.
Does this matter? Whether it's elevator attendants, truck drivers, or even programmers, if they're out of a job because it's been automated, the impact is the same: a bunch of people who need job retraining. How much effort they put into their previous career is largely irrelevant.
> That's assuming the price of espressos and goods would drop; I don't think that's likely.
Globalization brought us cheap chinese shit from aliexpress, didn't it?
