[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.