Minimum Wage: What's the Other Argument?

[Farm Boy]

If you view something as belonging to an ahole(or you're just bored) and can't get away with stealing it, breaking it will do.

 

[sophie]

That's what cameras are for? I could foresee some sort of mobile app or credit/debit card being put down at the beginning of the trip. If you wreck the car they have your information right there from the app/payment method.

The rates would probably be more fixed too.

 

[Farm Boy]

You wouldn't wreck a car you paid to ride in. Throwing heavy things at things that break is fun.

 

[sophie]

You wouldn't wreck a car you paid to ride in. Throwing heavy things at things that break is fun.

I just don't see that being that serious of an issue. Who is going to run into the street and wreck a taxi? Even if there's nobody in it. You don't see people running around trashing unoccupied cars right now. Unless they're aiming to steal them. Which, again. With no steering wheel and pedals, you'd need a tow truck to do. And you'd probably end up wrecking the car in the process anyway with no way to disengage brakes/put it in neutral/etc.

The only time I could see "people trashing taxis en masse" being a genuine issue would be if an honest-to-goodness luddite reaction occurs. Which I could see being a very real likelihood in the future. As 3D printing becomes more reliable and cheaper I could see the cost of replacing taxis (and cars in general) going down too.

 

[Zelig]

You may want to go back to my post about how much easier it is to convince people to participate in property crimes than crimes against person. Taking drivers out of cars produces a hundred times as many people willing to jack the car, easily. And your robot piloted car is going to be different to jack than a parked car, so the angle grinder if you don't have a key might not be as much of a necessity as you think.

I'm not really following why our vehicles would be more likely to get stolen or vandalized if they're robot piloted.

(To re-iterate/clarify, our vehicles aren't taxis, they don't provide rides to the public, and the angle grinder is to disable the car tracking features, unrelated to the car's ignition/door key.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not really following why our vehicles would be more likely to get stolen or vandalized if they're robot piloted.

(To re-iterate/clarify, our vehicles aren't taxis, they don't provide rides to the public, and the angle grinder is to disable the car tracking features, unrelated to the car's ignition/door key.)

I can pop all four wheels and tires off a disabled vehicle in under two minutes. There is a decent market for wheels and tires, even if they are so hot they are practically on fire. Disabling a car with a person inside is at the very least assault and an enterprising DA can parley it up to a flimsy kidnapping charge if they really hate me.

See the difference?

In the case of a robo taxi..."Yes, I took your taxi to such and such address. Y'know, I did see some hoodlum looking guys up the street a ways. They broke your car? Really??? Gosh, that's too bad. Descriptions? Nah, didn't get a good look."

 

[Zelig]

I can pop all four wheels and tires off a disabled vehicle in under two minutes. There is a decent market for wheels and tires, even if they are so hot they are practically on fire. Disabling a car with a person inside is at the very least assault and an enterprising DA can parley it up to a flimsy kidnapping charge if they really hate me.

See the difference?

Not really. Most non-robotic cars spend most of their time parked, you can easily pop all four wheels and tires off a parked car in under two minutes.

In the case of a robo taxi..."Yes, I took your taxi to such and such address. Y'know, I did see some hoodlum looking guys up the street a ways. They broke your car? Really??? Gosh, that's too bad. Descriptions? Nah, didn't get a good look."

Cameras work pretty well. And SOP with non-robotic car share programs is already that the last driver gets billed for damage or fines that occur after their trip ends but before the next trip begins. I'm don't see why making shared car fleets robotic would suddenly cause a rash of vandalism.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not really. Most non-robotic cars spend most of their time parked, you can easily pop all four wheels and tires off a parked car in under two minutes.

Parked cars are generally in bad locations, because...well...there are parked cars there. Parked cars mean people. People parking. People coming to get their car. People.

A quiet neighborhood street is good, but only if you know the people on the street well enough to know their habits...and the cars parked on the street belong to them, so that isn't good either. An industrial area street at night is good, but people know better than to park there. A cab that pulls onto the street maybe, but there's that cab driver turning a simple property crime into a federal beef. But a witness free vehicle that pulls onto the street and can be stopped and shopped? Very attractive.

 

[sophie]

Parked cars are generally in bad locations, because...well...there are parked cars there. Parked cars mean people. People parking. People coming to get their car. People.

A quiet neighborhood street is good, but only if you know the people on the street well enough to know their habits...and the cars parked on the street belong to them, so that isn't good either. An industrial area street at night is good, but people know better than to park there. A cab that pulls onto the street maybe, but there's that cab driver turning a simple property crime into a federal beef. But a witness free vehicle that pulls onto the street and can be stopped and shopped? Very attractive.

I don't really understand. So you're suggesting a car thief/chopper get in the taxi, direct the taxi to a quiet industrial area where his compatriots are waiting, then chop up the car and split?

Surely this would be covered under: require app/payment information/etc. supplied beforehand so if something happens to the taxi the company has your information?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't really understand. So you're suggesting a car thief/chopper get in the taxi, direct the taxi to a quiet industrial area where his compatriots are waiting, then chop up the car and split?

Surely this would be covered under: require app/payment information/etc. supplied beforehand so if something happens to the taxi the company has your information?

I take a cab to where I'm going. The cab gets jacked two blocks away. The cab company is going to hold me liable for damages to their unattended vehicle? Really??? I can promise you, without even a breath of hesitation, that I won't face criminal charges. As to civil liability, do you really think that is a long term enforceable policy? Some clause deep in the user agreement that I'm responsible for this unattended cab until someone else hires it? Be real.

 

[Zelig]

Parked cars are generally in bad locations, because...well...there are parked cars there. Parked cars mean people. People parking. People coming to get their car. People.

A quiet neighborhood street is good, but only if you know the people on the street well enough to know their habits...and the cars parked on the street belong to them, so that isn't good either. An industrial area street at night is good, but people know better than to park there. A cab that pulls onto the street maybe, but there's that cab driver turning a simple property crime into a federal beef. But a witness free vehicle that pulls onto the street and can be stopped and shopped? Very attractive.

Cameras are better witnesses than people.

I take a cab to where I'm going. The cab gets jacked two blocks away. The cab company is going to hold me liable for damages to their unattended vehicle? Really??? I can promise you, without even a breath of hesitation, that I won't face criminal charges. As to civil liability, do you really think that is a long term enforceable policy? Some clause deep in the user agreement that I'm responsible for this unattended cab until someone else hires it? Be real.

So why aren't people already doing this with existing car share programs?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Cameras are better witnesses than people.



So why aren't people already doing this with existing car share programs?

They may be better witnesses, but when you eliminate the witness and it is just a camera the consequences are nowhere near as extreme. That's the whole point. If you have robotic cabs I predict minimum wage jobs for people to just ride around in them and open doors for customers to provide a deterrent.

By the way, camaras are actually really crappy witnesses. I had a whole sheaf of photos and videos of me committing crimes in my jacket, and none of them had anything to do with me getting caught or convicted.

As to car share programs, I'd guess that the clients feel some attachment to the provided cars. A sense of partial ownership. I ask a car share person to leave 'their' car somewhere something will happen to it they at least briefly consider where their next ride will come from. You won't get that with a robocab.

 

[Zelig]

They may be better witnesses, but when you eliminate the witness and it is just a camera the consequences are nowhere near as extreme. That's the whole point. If you have robotic cabs I predict minimum wage jobs for people to just ride around in them and open doors for customers to provide a deterrent.

I don't think there's much evidence to correlate carjackings with lack of punishment. Do you have any?

By the way, camaras are actually really crappy witnesses. I had a whole sheaf of photos and videos of me committing crimes in my jacket, and none of them had anything to do with me getting caught or convicted.

Anecdote is anecdotal?

As to car share programs, I'd guess that the clients feel some attachment to the provided cars. A sense of partial ownership. I ask a car share person to leave 'their' car somewhere something will happen to it they at least briefly consider where their next ride will come from. You won't get that with a robocab.

Why wouldn't you? There's no rider ownership in the carshare program. The sole owner of the vehicles is a hundred billion dollar multinational corporation.

You also won't get a robocab stopping in a location where it's liable to get vandalized. You think masked bandits are going to start hunting down empty robocars with spike strips so they can steal a couple hundred dollars worth of rims before the cops show up?

This all sounds like incredibly more effort than stealing empty non-robocars already is.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This all started with "what are all the unemployed people going to do?"

My point all along is that if someone is even remotely desperate crimes against property (robocab) are a pretty easy leap.

Where crimes against person (robbing a cab driver, jacking an occupied car) are things that very few people can be talked into, no matter their circumstances.

If you disagree with that I'm fine with it, but you haven't really addressed it so I don't know why you are so vehement.

 

[Zelig]

This all started with "what are all the unemployed people going to do?"

My point all along is that if someone is even remotely desperate crimes against property (robocab) are a pretty easy leap.

Where crimes against person (robbing a cab driver, jacking an occupied car) are things that very few people can be talked into, no matter their circumstances.

If you disagree with that I'm fine with it, but you haven't really addressed it so I don't know why you are so vehement.

I simply don't see how jacking parked robocars is more attractive to criminals than jacking parked non-robocars.

And even if it were, that just doesn't cover all the non-taxi scenarios for robocars (the tens of thousands of cars my company runs are all commercial/industrial/executive). Furthermore, the obvious result is simply to up deterrence measures in robocars, (if you think deterrence is relevant). Or alternatively, robotaxis will be a premium service that you won't be able to route to industrial areas or poor neighborhoods, they'll exclusively service communities vetted for low crime rates.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Again, this started from the 'eliminate all the transport and retail jobs with robots' concept. One basic flaw in that is that people are a deterrent to crime. As someone else pointed out, the clerks at the front of the store are there to prevent massive shoplifting. I agreed with you already on 'the solution is to up deterrence in robocars'. In a robocab that could mean a guy riding along, opening doors for the customer and surfing the web in between for minimum wage. That approaches the problem both ways, because it reduces unemployment and provides a human to make crime against the car vastly less likely.

It was never about jacking parked robocars, it was about disabling them and stripping them in the street, just by the way. I assume your robocars are programmed to deal with cars driven by lame humans, yes? So pull in front of one and stop it, then pull another car behind it. A scared human is liable to do anything at that point, but whatever the robocar is going to do, it is going to be predictable, and criminals love predictable.

 

[Zelig]

Again, this started from the 'eliminate all the transport and retail jobs with robots' concept. One basic flaw in that is that people are a deterrent to crime. As someone else pointed out, the clerks at the front of the store are there to prevent massive shoplifting. I agreed with you already on 'the solution is to up deterrence in robocars'. In a robocab that could mean a guy riding along, opening doors for the customer and surfing the web in between for minimum wage. That approaches the problem both ways, because it reduces unemployment and provides a human to make crime against the car vastly less likely.

A single security guard can replace a whole bunch of clerks with self-checkouts.

Similarly, you can have a single security guy watch camera feeds for dozens of cars. If a car gets attacked, he presses the lockdown button and phones the police.

It was never about jacking parked robocars, it was about disabling them and stripping them in the street, just by the way. I assume your robocars are programmed to deal with cars driven by lame humans, yes? So pull in front of one and stop it, then pull another car behind it. A scared human is liable to do anything at that point, but whatever the robocar is going to do, it is going to be predictable, and criminals love predictable.

Again, this is an incredible amount of work. You need to plan ahead to cover the plate on the front car, stop in the middle of the road and run a bunch of guys with masks to the robocars to steal some tires before the cops show up? How is this any easier than just stealing the tires off a regular parked car?

Even better, once there are enough robocars, you can send the fleet to follow the thieves' vehicles, and relay location/direction to the police.

 

[Mise]

With automation replacing jobs, the question for me isn't whether or not automation leads to a net increase in jobs, but whether or not automation leads to a net increase in human welfare. I believe that it does, even if more jobs are destroyed than created.

Perhaps welfare increases precisely because more jobs are destroyed than created.

Eh, maybe. Do remember that my original post was twelve words and a smiley. I wasn't expecting to spin a thesis out of it!

The only reason I looked at it in so much detail is because I fully expect that you could spin even your pithiest of one-liners into a pretty convincing thesis. There's always something worth thinking about in your posts...

 

[Flying Pig]

That's very true, actually. A side effect of there being more money but less jobs would, for example, be that fewer people were forced to work past retirement age, as we could spin that extra money into better pensions. Unemployment isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, it's the goal once you're materially taken care of. The problem kicks in if you're forced to be unemployed because no one wants to trade your labour for their money. And meanwhile your body burns 2,000 calories per day.

"More money, but fewer jobs" requires redistribution