|
|
|
|
|
|
by cooper12
3591 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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?