Do you have a citation for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (today's "Teamsters") ever trying to ban automobiles? That doesn't really make sense to me chronologically.
replyIt is not mentioned in "Fighting Traffic", which would be quite an oversight!
They don’t have a citation because they made it up.
replyI think it is fascinating that HN thinks it is bad for workers in other professions to protest against things that take away their earning abilities, and then proceed to protest against things that take away the earning abilities of tech workers — AI, immigration, outsourcing, non necessary layoffs, you name it.
replyThere are multiple different people that post comments here, each with their own divergent opinions.
replyYou'd be surprised how much of a bubble HN actually is compared to the general public.
replySame for the longshoremen union, much is still done by hand whereas in other countries the shipping infrastructure is largely automated and much more efficient.
replyJust dropping here because it's an excellent read on US port automation
replyhttps://www.construction-physics.com/p/do-us-ports-need-more...
Doesn’t appear they were successful, seems self driving taxis are still allowed. From my understanding, they have better bargaining rights for companies intending to switch to automation, but nothing preventing a scrappy upstart with only driverless taxis from coming in and eating their lunch.
replyExactly, there's an episode covering it on Freakonomics Radio: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/in-a-driverless-world-who-l...
replySearch Engine covered it too: https://www.searchengine.show/the-trial-of-the-driverless-ca...
reply> Just as the teamsters tried to ban cars to protect horse carriage drivers
replyIs that true?
So a random poster makes an assertion and rather than Google it and verify it yourself you throw out a request for another random poster to concur? And that concurrence you will take at face value and then believe the original assertion?
replyNo. Quite the opposite if these first search results I'm reading are any indicator.
replyYou need to check your facts on that one just fyi. A cursory google search proves this is definitely not true.
replyWell yeah they're presenting an irrational argument to benefit the few.
reply> Well yeah they're presenting an irrational argument to benefit the few.
replyThe only few that should benefit are the owners. If a few workers try to benefit, they're greedy bastards who would be pounded down.
I would also be opposed to laws making it illegal for anyone to compete with the owners.
replyUnions are great and all, but they cannot solve all problems purely by maximizing their demands. If the resulting business (with the unions and the costs of satisfying them) is no longer able to offer a compelling marketplace offering then all the unions accomplish is destroy their own jobs. This is actually nuanced (meaning there is probably an ideal balance where both parties can enjoy benefits, but too far in either direction is either toxic to the workers or kills the business) but unfortunately the discussion is generally conducted with this kind of flippant emotional appeal. I think that’s why unions are in massive decline. A ton of unionized jobs died because the businesses couldn’t compete, and businesses work to avoid unions at all costs because of that reputation. A lose-lose for workers.
reply>A ton of unionized jobs died because the businesses couldn’t compete, and businesses work to avoid unions at all costs because of that reputation.
replyDo you have a source for any of this beyond "a corporate spokesmouth said so"?
When owners try to lock down industries with government restrictions, we also oppose that. In this case, society as a whole is harmed by what the unions are demanding. It means everybody, including other workers, get less affordable goods and services. Greater affordability through automation is the sole means by which wages and purchasing power increase over time.
replyok hope you stick to this stance when ai comes for your job
reply