[jwallaceparker]

You and a friend are stranded on an island. You both spend all your working hours catching fish by hand in order to eat.

You use some leisure time to build a fishing rod, which enables just one of you to catch enough fish to feed you both.

It would be foolish to destroy the fishing rod to preserve both your jobs as fishermen. One of you would fish and the other would do something else, like build shelter and cut firewood.

It's just the two of you, so you don't literally exchange in barter, but an implicit exchange takes place when you share the fish, shelter and firewood.

You both enjoy a better standard of living thanks to the productivity increase created by the fishing rod.

A modern economy is much more complex but the same fundamental principle applies.

The ride-hailing apps make taxi drivers more productive by helping them connect with customers faster.

Now it takes fewer taxi drivers to satisfy the demands of customers. This frees up the labor time of the remaining taxi drivers to produce additional goods or services.

There is certainly temporary pain endured by workers who are displaced by the innovation. But it is folly to subsidize work that is no longer in demand.

[tim333]

Not sure it takes fewer drivers to satisfy the demands of customers. As Uber like apps make getting a ride cheaper and nicer the useage is presumably going up so there should be more drivers but making less per hour.

[jwallaceparker]

> Not sure it takes fewer drivers to satisfy the demands of customers.

I mean this in the sense that any one taxi driver can satisfy more customers with the use of a ride-hailing app than without.

You're right that ride-hailing apps have increased the demand for taxi rides.

[cooper12]

I'm not saying that the taxi drivers are right, but your example ignores the education and certification that modern professions require. These days most professions require degrees. Taxi drivers need to be certified and that requires memorizing tons of routes. Taxi drivers are exactly the crowd that doesn't have a college education, severely hampering their mobility to other professions except ones which are worse.

Anyway, just another example of how the analogies the hacker crowd loves so much always fail at closer inspection.

[jwallaceparker]

The analogy most certainly does not fail at closer inspection.

Do you disavow all innovation? Does innovation render people who don't have degrees useless?

Certainly not.

Quite the contrary, innovation makes them more productive and increases their wage earning ability.

[cooper12]

Umm, I'm not sure you understood my point. How are they going to earn more? They don't have degrees to fall back on, and the only skill they have is driving taxis. They're going to be replaced by younger people willing to work for less who rely on GPS instead and aren't hampered by needing any training, certification, or medallions. No one is going to hire someone less qualified than a recent graduate, especially one hoping to earn the same (or more as you claim) as before. Do you really see it as a net gain if a taxi driver ends up bagging groceries? Innovation makes education more important because the more menial/automated stuff is already taken.

[jwallaceparker]

> Umm, I'm not sure you understood my point.

I understand your point. I'm asking if you apply the same logic to all innovation.

You are focusing solely on the displacement of taxi drivers and using that as justification to oppose innovation that makes taxi drivers more productive.

Do you oppose bulldozers? Certainly one person who operates a bulldozer can do the work of several who only have shovels. Do you really want to tax the bulldozer operator to pay for people to dig with shovels?

[102310201]

Your premise is wrong: There hardly is any innovation. At least in Europe I've never had any kind of trouble just picking up the phone and, you know, getting a competent cab driver very quickly.

But The U.S. seems to be some third world country that can manufacture nukes and computers but is unable to get the most basic things right.

This apparently applies to banking, the electricity grid, health care and lots of other things that are solved problems in other parts of the world (i.e. no innovation is needed).

[ajosh]

First of all, calling the US a third world country us a but much. It has its problems but so does everywhere else.

In the US, I've never had trouble calling to get a taxi. Radio dispatched taxis have been available as long as I can remember everywhere I've lived. Uber is somewhat more convenient because GPS gives my exact location and it lets the driver contact me easily. It's not something crazy innovation but it is easier.

I'm not sure what you're talking about with electricity. The grid is generally reliable though it could stand to be put underground in many areas.

We are behind in banking to be sure but a lot of that has to do with demand and consumer protection laws. No one is screaming for a more secure card when fraud liability is limited to $50 by law and is $0 in practice at most banks.

Healthcare could use an overhaul to be sure. Outcomes and costs are not in line with where they should be. That isn't to say that it us terrible, just that the system needs improvement.

Most of these companies aren't truing to overcome bad. They are trying to overcome good enough.

[JoeAltmaier]

Doesn't "pick up the phone and get a competent driver very quickly" describe Uber perfectly? So America gets it right and still can't win.

[emodendroket]

For this analogy to work the ridesharing services would need to give taxi companies a lot more than a nickel a ride.

[jwallaceparker]

The specific value of the subsidy is completely irrelevant to the analogy.

[emodendroket]

If the fishing rod let your friend catch 105% as much as he needed to eat you probably need to keep fishing yourself.

[jwallaceparker]

Yes, you would. But with your remaining time you'd build shelter or firewood, just not as much.

The same principle applies. You still both improved your standard of living. The extent of the improvement depends on the productivity increase afforded by the fishing rod.

[gkya]

The number of professions don't go up, and will certainly diminish in the future. Switching professions as a young person without a dependent family is not all that hard. But as a family father/mother, it's not always possible to spend the time to switch professions. Today most of the jobs have qualification, experience and age requirements.

> There is certainly temporary pain endured by workers who are displaced by the innovation. But it is folly to subsidize work that is no longer in demand.

That should not mean the transition could not be smoothened, though.

Let me comment on your example. In todays economy things are sold, not shared. So I need to have something to give in return for the fish that the fisherman (the guy with the fishing rod) gives me. I can dive for scallops. But another guy comes with a scallop-collecting machine and the fisherman does not need my scallops anymore, as he can buy from him cheaper. So I start guarding their stocks for them in return for fish and scallops to eat. But then they invent an automated system for defence of their stock, so my labour is unnecessary now. I need to eat, so I start farming, and as I can't live on herbs merely, I trade some of my crop for fish and scallops. But one day they start importing it from another island for cheaper, and stop buying from me. I can't support my farm year-round just on my crops, so I switch to herding a flock of sheep, and trade meat for fish, scallops, and herbs. But someone comes and builds a modern meat production plant, and I can't sell cheaper than him, so I'm out of business. Given I can't live on my herds' meat only, I need to move on. And while the island slowly thrives with newcomers as the services are increasing and life is becoming easier, the amount of my opportunities diminish. Finally I start up a little market where I sell stuff that I import and/or buy from local providers in order to earn the money to buy fish, scallops, herbs, meat and other stuff. But comes a big coop and drives me out of business. I resort to taxi driving in order to survive, but apps and ridesharing replace my business. I go around seeking a job, in factories, coops, fishmongers, etc., and I find a job as a cashier in the local coop. But an automatic cash largely diminishes necessity of a cashier, so, I'm moved to the big depot of the coop. There, automation, growingly replaces the need for human labor, and as I'm rather inexperienced, I'm laid off. Because they don't want me to become a hobo and pose 'em a threat, some institution gives me 'unemployment money', so that I can survive. I don't want to survive, I want to live, but I lost the chance to become a white-collar while I was trying to catch on, I didn't have the time to focus on one thing and become a professional. So I sort of live as a dependent of the social welfare system, barely surviving, without human dignity. Furthermore, I'm excluded from some parts of community by social code, and am informally a second-class citizen, as I live off the taxes of others. A family is merely a dream for me, as I don't have the money to support it. And should I already have a family, my kids and my partner are at least frustrated at me as I'm a dysfunctional member of the family, though it's also possible that I'm excluded.

Here, a more realistic allegory.

[jwallaceparker]

lol you're trolling me, right?

[gkya]

Why do you think that? Isn't that similar to how labour and income evolved since the industrial revolution?

[jwallaceparker]

So you would really destroy the fishing rod in my original example?

[gkya]

No. I'm not criticising innovation here, but what I tried was to extend your analogy represent it's development more accurately. Some jobs will abruptly die in the coming future, and some people will become unemployed. Up until recently this happened slowly, i.e. it took its time, occupations lost their members one by one, until they had a handful, then only one, then they passed away, left the place to newcomers. But now it's happening more abruptly. In the course of years taxis, an established, centuries old occupation, is becoming obsolete, along with other occupations. If people become unemployed quickly and in bulk without the chance to transition, the transition will happen, but way more troublesome. Innovation will happen, but we must make sure that we won't ruin lifes for it to happen, and account for its consequences, negative or positive.