[afarrell]

This depends on what the barriers to entry for starting a company. If the barriers to entry are low because you can buy self-driving software off-the-shelf for $20,000 then profits will be low. If the barriers to entry are high because the shipping is done by Uber, Google, etc then the profits will be high.

But you are right that it would increase economic inequality.

[smokeyj]

How does automated truck drivers unequivocally equal economic inequality? It's theoretically possible that this labor is now freed up to create value for lower income households..

The only reason self driving tech won't be commoditized will be regulatory barriers. You can imagine why entrenched interests would lobby for such.

[afarrell]

> It's theoretically possible that this labor is now freed up to create value for lower income households.

If there is competition, then it is true that driving down food/commodities prices will create value for lower income households. But a solid portion of that value will still accrue to the companies running the transit networks using fewer people.

Google has spent years trying to enter the field of self-driving cars. So has Uber. Would not the inherent difficulty they are encountering be a barrier to entry.

I'm not arguing for throwing regulations around willy-nilly. I'm not arguing for regulations at all. I don't know enough to do that with any confidence. I'm just saying that in asking the question "Should we use the force of the state to handle some of the effects of this?", the probability of this increasing income inequality is worthy of serious consideration.

[smokeyj]

> I don't know enough to do that with any confidence.

From an epistemological perspective no one does. No one person in this world contains the knowledge needed to manufacture a modern day pencil from scratch.

I don't think the term "income inequality" accurately describes the problem. Someone growing richer doesn't mean someone else had to become poorer. The problem more accurately is that poor people are poor.

[nixos]

> If the barriers to entry are low because you can buy self-driving software off-the-shelf for $20,000 then profits will be low

In the beginning. Then due to economy of scale (and government regulations), it will be controlled by two huge companies, owning all IP, making any inroads close to impossible.

Think of when the newest major computer manufacturer was founded.

[afarrell]

Well wait no. If it is the case that anyone can buy off-the-shelf software for self-driving cars for a price of $20,000, then a person could just buy a rig, fit it out, develop a relationship with a set of farmers or whatever, and be in business.

How would one of the conglomerates stop that besides competing on price or erecting regulatory barriers?

[nixos]

Because he's going to buy it for $20,000. The conglomerate can sell it for $15,000. Who's going to buy it from him.

It's a commodity market (so little "customizing" benefit), crazy IP with feedback loop (Google and Tesla have more street data than anyone else, so they can perfect their algorithms. As their algorithms are better than anyone else's, people buy there hardware, which gives them more data, ad infinitum. Breaking into such a market will be getting harder and harder for that reason), and quite likely some kind of (strict but bureaucratic) safety regulation.

[afarrell]

er "it", is the software to run your own autonomous vehicles. It is the hypothetical cost of capital. If it is widely available, then people can sell transit services to other businesses.