> what happens to an industry when it's made redundant by technology
We have over 200 years experience of countless industries being made redundant by technology. It's not a new scary thing that has never happened before.
We also have 200 years of people in the redundant industries complaining about it, and 200 years of government regulating to make the transition less painful. Why should we stop that with taxis?
And it bears reminding that some of this 200 years of history was pretty bloody precisely because people were fed up of being told to "suck it up" and do what the entrepreneurs say them to to survive. The mostly sane working conditions we enjoy today - like somewhat reasonable working hours, like leaves and insurances - things a lot of people in my generation work to destory, for some reason -- all those things were paid for in blood by our great-grandfathers.
Here in the UK there were a number of Factory Acts passed between 1802 and 1961 that were designed to limit the impact of the industrial revolution on workers, lessening the pain of transition from agriculture and cottage industry to the modern mechanised factories. The one closest to 200 years ago did such progressive things as limiting the working hours a 9 year old child could do to 12 hours a day.
How is that easing the transition? Sounds more like making sure the current working environment doesn't suck, and that the benefits of technology are actually passed on to those who are using it.
A good welfare system pretty much solves it. I'm not sure why America is struggling to create one.
Here in Australia the government will happily pay you $300 a week until you can find a job. It costs us something like $9.5B per year, which is pretty much nothing. Our government doesn't have to disincentivise innovation to help people adjust.
Sure, some people are going to find it hard to live on that amount, but they won't go hungry or homeless. I think it's well within the realms of "suck it up".
> A good welfare system pretty much solves it. I'm not sure why America is struggling to create one.
America is still divided even on the question whether healthcare should be universal, which other states introduced ~50 years before unemployment benefits were invented, so I think this will still take a while.
Some sort of basic income or a welfare scheme. As someone else mentioned, Australian's out of job get paid $300 or $400 depending on how many kids you have etc and how much savings. This allows the government to make sure that everyone out of a job doesn't go homeless but its not enough to be comfortable so people don't become dependent on it. ( Some people do become dependent on it, its not a 100% unfortunately )
It isn't meant to be "comfortable". That was clear I think from the parent comment. If you want to live long-term on the government money, it might be possible in a group living situation, with pooled resources. But it's meant to be a floor against abject poverty, not a recliner.
It's not easy but it's not particularly difficult either. The only hard part is if you're living in a suburb that HN readers tend to live in, you'll have to move house and possibly get a housemate or two if you're single so you can cover the rent. But once you accept that, it's really just a matter of cooking your own meals and buying in bulk where possible.
Get roommates in a cheap city, your rent could be down near $400-$600 / mo., that leaves plenty left over for food and necessities. Buy cheap clothing.