
Self-Driving Trucks Are Going to Hit Us Like a Human-Driven Truck - edward
https://medium.com/basic-income/self-driving-trucks-are-going-to-hit-us-like-a-human-driven-truck-b8507d9c5961
======
afarrell
There may be labor resistance to self-driving trucks, but you know who is in
favor of[1] self-driving cars? the American Association of Retired Persons.
They are the most powerful lobbying organization in the US because in addition
to their $232 million[1] lobbying budget, they can deliver the thing that
politicians on state and federal levels care most about: votes. People age 65
and older consistently vote at higher rates than the rest of the population
[3]. At least, until their inability to drive a car keeps them from the
polls...

[1] [http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-
technology/info-201...](http://www.aarp.org/home-family/personal-
technology/info-2014/google-self-driving-car.html)

[2] [http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/22/is-the-
aarp-...](http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/22/is-the-aarp-
the-900poundinvisiblegorillaintheroom.html)

[3]
[http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2012/03/19...](http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2012/03/19/why-
older-citizens-are-more-likely-to-vote)

~~~
s_q_b
The elderly have organized pickups to drive them to the polls, absentee
ballots, relatives, etc.

The scariest thing I've seen was a Facebook conversation in which no less than
a dozen of my classmates, all finance sector employees, were openly mocking an
article about the massive disruption self-driving cars will have, as if it
were a Jetson's fantasy rather than a one to two year prospect and ten year
inevitability. We're in for a massive bumpy disruption. Smart investors stand
to make a fortune right now. But a lot of people are going to lose their shirt
in the process.

~~~
afarrell
Thats true. I've overstated the case that AARP would view driverless cars as a
means to greatly increase the size of its voting bloc rather than just prevent
social isolation of its members.

I'd be willing to bet that the combination of the possibility for massive
economic value from driverless cars combined with a lack of knowledge around
that will lead some people to be irrationally exuberant. Hopefully this does
not lead to a bubble.

------
camillomiller
The Simpsons were way ahead of their times:

Maximum Homerdrive (S10.E17). First aired March 28, 1999.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Homerdrive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Homerdrive)

"During the [trucking] trip [from Springfield to Atlanta], Homer falls asleep
and wakes up abruptly at the wheel of the truck due to taking a combination of
pep pills and sleeping pills that he bought at a general store. He awakes to
discover that the truck drove by itself with its Navitron Autodrive system. He
informs other truck drivers, who inform him that he cannot let anyone know
about the Autodrive system because it would make all truck drivers lose their
jobs. However, Homer tells a passing bus about the system which causes an
angry mob of truckers to get in a showdown with Homer, and he survives without
the autodrive system. Homer and Bart arrive in Atlanta to finish the shipment
on time, and then commandeer a train full of napalm to Springfield."

~~~
s_q_b
The blackboard in a particular episode also contains the correct mass of the
Higgs boson. There were several maths PhDs on the writing staff, so there's a
lot of intelligent humor that flies over the average viewer's head (and often
mine for some of the hidden math jokes.)

~~~
cbd1984
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/29/the_simpsons_...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/29/the_simpsons_and_fermat_s_last_theorem_wizard_of_evergreen_terrace_has_brilliant.html)

"The Wizard of Evergreen Terrace", 1998.

------
tzs
For those like me who looked at that map and thought "no way is truck driver
the most common job in so many states!", click the NPR link below the map to
get to the source for the map. They explain the truck driver thing there. One
big factor is that their source doesn't subdivide truck drivers, but does
subdivide most other common jobs, such as teachers (split into primary and
secondary school teachers).

Also, the map on the NPR site is interactive, showing changes over the years.
For instance, you can see a lot of states where you probably would have
guessed farmer is most common were that way 10 to 20 years ago, but now fewer
farmers are needed to grow the same or more food, and so the number of farmers
declined.

~~~
the8472
In other words: the "most common job" statistic is quite arbitrary due to non-
uniform binning of job types.

The question is, is this somehow fixable?

I don't see a way because those categorizations themselves seem arbitrary and
you could lump anything somewhat related together while dividing down anything
else if you want to show it's "the most common".

~~~
Schwolop
Presumably if you took the top 100, and manually merged then into the top 25?
50? job "categories", you'd have a more stable grouping and more interesting
time-series statistics.

------
anigbrowl
All of this is absolutely true. But what we need for the idea of basic income
to take off is a positive rationale for it, as opposed to a negative one of
the 'if we don't we're fucked' kind. The reason this matters is that the
disruption won't be overnight, so you're looking at more of aobiling-frog
scenario where the pace of job loss is slow enough that politicians can blame
it on other sources for a while, like whoever is in the White House at the
time, furriners taking our jawbs, workers being too lazy to
retrain...basically the same bullshit we've heard over most of the last decade
as an excuse not to engage with the deeper structural problems in our economy.
Politicians excel at this; look at how Japan has been in an economic stall for
20 or so years, with politicians tinkering round the edges and shying away
from fundamental change, because opportunist opponents can leverage change to
mobilize political power by making empty promises.

The problem is that a basic income to (say) the 150m people in the civilian
labor force x the ~$23k poverty line income would be about $3.4 trillion,
which is not far off the entire federal government budget. That's (very
roughly) $10,000 worth of redistribution for everyone in the country, which is
going to be an _incredibly_ tough sell politically, for reasons that I hope
are obvious.

People in general are terrible at doing sensible things to stave off a
distant-seeming catastrophe, _viz_ the relatively poor progress on
lowering/mitigating/managing the effects of climate change (whether or not you
believe it's humanity's fault) or any number of other topics.

I do agree with the writer's conclusion and reasoning, I'm just pessimistic
about our ability to manage the accelerating pace of disruption.

~~~
sumitviii
Isn't basic income a bit weird? I am a total noob, but to get money, truck
drivers do something. Getting money for not doing anything is like increasing
the lower limit on minimum money you can have.

The way to do it is probably paying only to the unemployed. Sounds socialism,
because it is. But hating socialism just because USSR did it the wrong way is,
in my opinion, stupid.

~~~
pjc50
_increasing the lower limit on minimum money you can have_

.. yes? That's the point. Along with increasing the lower limit on the amount
of food you can have and the amount of housing you can have, up from
"starvation" and "cardboard box".

~~~
jotm
What I'm afraid of is that setting a basic income will increase food and
housing prices, because "people can now afford it". And then we're back to
square one...

~~~
geon
What you describe is inflation. But that would require more money in
circulation, wouldn't it? Basic income would just be redistribution.

Obviously, economy is vastly more complicated, and there are correlation
effects between everything, so I don't know...

~~~
URSpider94
Inflation does not have to be even across all categories of goods. It is
entirely feasible that the cost of food and housing would rise, while the cost
of luxury yachts would fall.

Wealth redistribution also does have the effect of increasing the money
supply, without minting more money. The poor tend to spend 100% of what they
take in, while the wealthy put a large portion of their money in the bank,
where its not circulating in the economy.

~~~
evanpw
I think your second paragraph has the effect backwards. If you spend $10, then
you have $10 less, and someone else has $10 more, no change in money supply.
If you put $10 in the bank, the bank loans out $9 of it, so you "have" $10,
someone else has $9, and the money supply has grown.

~~~
nhaehnle
The grandparent comment (i.e. by URspider94) is correct. What you write about
banks is a common, but incorrect misconception about what banks do.

The truth of the matter is: _Banks do not need deposits to make loans._

Quite the contrary: Banks make loaning decisions independent of the level of
their deposits - and it is the loan that causes the deposit, rather than the
other way around, because the money loaned by the bank eventually lands in
somebody's deposit.

Think about it this way: A bank cannot force anybody to take out a loan.
Instead, there is a demand for loans which banks satisfy (subject to checks of
creditworthiness and available collateral). Whether person A spends $10 or
puts it in a deposit does not change person B's demand for credit,[1] and
therefore the amount lent by banks does not change either.

[1] Of course, this is not entirely true. There can be causal links, but their
direction is totally uncertain. For example, person A deciding _not_ to spend
money could mean that person B's business begins to struggle and person B
needs to take out a loan that they otherwise would not have had to take. In
that case, saving does increase the level of loans, but in a way that most
people would judge to be detrimental to the economy.

Conversely, person A deciding to _spend_ the money could lead to person B's
business projecting growth, which encourages person B to invest by taking out
a loan. In this case, the loan level increases as well, and in a way that most
people would judge to be beneficial.

The economy is complicated.

~~~
evanpw
Where do banks get the money that they loan out if not from deposits?

Reserve requirements dictate what percentage of deposits banks have to keep on
hand rather than loan out, and its inverse, the money multiplier, determines
how much the money supply is expanded by repeated application of the
deposit->loan process. This seems to be the standard treatment: I checked
Abel-Bernanke's and Mankiw's Macroeconomics textbooks and they both tell
basically the same story.

The supply and demand for loanable funds are balanced through a price
mechanism: the interest rate. If banks have lots of deposits and can't loan
them all out, then they'll lower the interest rate that they charge until they
can. If there's more demand for loans than can be covered by deposits, then
banks will increase the interest rate that they charge until the two are
balanced.

~~~
nhaehnle
The banks emphatically do not get the money they loan out from deposits,
because even though your bank makes loans, the money in your deposit is still
there and available whenever you want.

Compare this to a private investment arrangement where after you invest (aka
lend) your money, your money is gone (in exchange for the promise to get more
back later, and/or certain other rights such as ownership in a company).

When banks lend out money, what they do is either give you an account with a
positive balance (in this case, the money doesn't have to come from anywhere,
because all the bank is doing is changing some rows in their databases) or
they make a payment to another bank on your behalf. In the latter case, the
money that you actually see as a bank customer again doesn't have to come from
anywhere, because it gets created by the involved banks changing some rows in
their databases. There is also settlement in reserves occuring behind the
scenes, and if a bank's reserve position drops low, what I write elsewhere
applies: As long as a bank is solvent, they can always get reserves either
from another bank or, in the worst case, from the central bank.

As far as the money multiplier is concerned, there are two ways to look at it.
The first is empirical:
[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT)
How does a _wildly_ varying money multiplier fit in with your story?

Also, there a countries where the reserve requirement is zero. The inverse of
zero is not well-defined or infinity, depending on how you look at it. Yet
those countries don't have an infinite money supply. How does that fit in with
your story?

The second way is from first principles by actually looking at the laws. If
you look into reserve requirements, you'll see that banks only have to satisfy
them _after the fact_. That is, people in a bank's loan department first make
loans, and then people in a _different department_ of the bank go out and
ensure that the bank satisfies the reserve requirements. They usually do so by
lending and borrowing on the interbank market, but if they cannot borrow
there, they can always get the required reserves from the central bank. See
e.g. here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discount_window](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discount_window)

Finally, your last paragraph does show a potential causal pathway from
increased savings to a higher demand for credit, via the interest rate. The
import question is the relative strength of that pathway compared to others,
such as the ones that I have described in my previous comment.

Obviously even economists end up disagreeing on that matter, given their
political biases (though beware false prophets paid by wealthy people to
spread lies and half-truths). Three final points on that particular matter:

(1) How sensitive to interest rates do you really think loan demand is? If a
business sees growth in revenue, they are likely to invest and expand (which
often involves taking loans) even in a high interest rate environment. On the
other hand, if a business sees decreasing interest rates but also a fall in
revenue, will they still take on loans in order to invest in a growth of their
business? The answer can be yes occasionally, but it is more likely to be no.
This is supported by surveys of business leaders.

This point is important, because in the face of high savings, businesses may
see lower interest rates as a second-order effect, but they will also
_definitely_ see lower revenue as a first-order effect. When a large-scale
shift of customer behavior towards savings happens, then businesses will see
the fall in revenue _first_ , long before banks lower their interest rates on
loans.

(2) Empirically, some people have predicted for a long time, since the
beginning of the financial crisis, that low interest rates would bring growth
back via investment. And yet interest rates have been at the zero lower bound
for some time with at best mixed results. (Again, the quantitative parts
matter: Yes, low interest rates encourage demand for credit, but how strong is
that effect compared to others that may go in the opposite direction?)

(3) The range in which interest rates actually vary by that mechanism is
limited, because the central bank fixes the short term interest rate based on
political considerations. (That's what e.g. the FOMC meetings in the US are
all about. It's totally in your face, actually, but still many people refuse
to really grok it ;-)) Obviously, the long term interest rate for loans taken
by banks (which is some markup above that politically set rate) can vary, but
the real story is control by the central bank.

[My comments are getting too long, so I stop here, even though there are more
details to be talked about.]

~~~
evanpw
> even though your bank makes loans, the money in your deposit is still there
> and available whenever you want

This is definitely not true. If everyone asks for their money at once, the
money won't be there because most of it has been loaned out. That's a bank
run.

> How does a wildly varying money multiplier fit in with your story?

Over three decades, it looks pretty stable to me. The multiplier also varies
based on the amount people want to hold in cash (I'm getting this from
Krugman's book), because that's how money leaks out of the deposit->loan
cycle. That could easily vary a non-trivial amount over 30 years. The most
recent period where the multiplier is less than one I will grant is weird. The
Fed has started paying interest on reserves, and banks are more wary post-
recession, so they've started accumulating a huge amount of excess reserves:
[https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCSRESNS](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCSRESNS).

> there a countries where the reserve requirement is zero

Obviously, the ratio that matters is not the legal minimum reserve
requirement, but the actual effective reserve ratio. A bank has to keep a
certain amount of reserves to keep their business running. The legal
requirement is just to make sure that the amount they keep on hand is prudent.
There's also the aforementioned leakage of money out of the deposit->loan
cycle via currency held by the public, which can reduce the money multiplier
further.

The rest of your post gives some good reasons that the real world doesn't work
quite like the mainstream theory. It sounds like you're explaining an
endogenous money theory; do you have any suggested references for further
reading?

------
remarkEon
_And with that, the elimination of entire industries built up around the
existence of car ownership like: mechanics, car washes, parking, valets, body
shops, rental companies, car insurance, car loans, and on and on._

I'm not so sure that's true. If a truck/car breaks down on the road, it
doesn't matter if there's a human behind the wheel or a software program. It
still needs to get fixed. There will still need to be financing of these
vehicles, ostensibly because they might be more expensive because of the
software/hardware allowing it to be autonomous in the first place. We haven't
really worked through how insuring these things will work, but just because
they're autonomous does not mean that all of a sudden the entire automotive
insurance industry evaporates.

On the whole, however, I agree with the initial point about how the peripheral
economies built around servicing human truck drivers on their routes will take
a hit. I'm thinking of all the towns on the way to Watertown from Minneapolis
that would probably evaporate if they didn't have the trucks running the daily
on the 212.

~~~
akira2501
> On the whole, however, I agree with the initial point about how the
> peripheral economies built around servicing human truck drivers on their
> routes will take a hit. I'm thinking of all the towns on the way to
> Watertown from Minneapolis that would probably evaporate if they didn't have
> the trucks running the daily on the 212.

Are they going to stop the trucks? Are self driving trucks going to be able to
carry more load? Are we going to change highway rules to allow more than 80k
pounds total weight for a single tractor/trailer? Are the trucks going to be
electric or have vastly improved MPG?

No. So there will still be the same amount of truck traffic as well as the
same amount of fuel being sold in nearly the same locations. Perhaps
restaurants will take a hit, but fuel and servicing will still be utilized for
quite some time.

~~~
geon
> fuel and servicing will still be utilized

I'd imagine it would be profitable to install larger gas tanks in autonomous
trucks. A human driver would need to stop for breaks anyway, so a huge tank
doesn't make sense.

With autonomous trucks, there's no reason to stop until you run out of gas.
Trucking companies could pretty easily save some money if they have their own
private gas stations on the endpoints. Especially since they can make them
autonomous as well.

~~~
akira2501
> I'd imagine it would be profitable to install larger gas tanks in autonomous
> trucks.

To a point. There are still limits on the total weight of the tractor and
trailer (and fuel). So, the more you scale fuel, the less load you can carry.
There is a tradeoff, and it's _not_ much more beneficial than where we are
today.

Considering most trucks take a 300 gallon load out already. That's already
2,600 lbs of fuel or 3% of your total weight limit.

If we choose a low value for the average MPG, let's say 5, then those 300
gallons of fuel will get you 1,500 miles. If we choose a high value of 70
miles per hour average speed, then it will take you 21 hours to deplete your
fuel.

So, when I examine this, I don't see a case for much larger fuel tanks than we
have today. The economics and realities of trucking are already very well
thought out; more so than most people seem to believe.

I've said it before, but short other technological advances and human needs, I
think we're at least 20 years away from fully automated trucking.

~~~
geon
Interesting. How much weight could be saved by not having a driver? You
wouldn't need a windshield, chairs, sleeping compartment etc.

~~~
akira2501
It's hard to say exactly, but the tractor usually weighs around 25000 lbs. You
can probably save around 2000 to 3000 lbs of that.

If you do remove the operator completely you're going to end up creating other
jobs anyways, as now you're going to need people to respond to flat tires and
other load issues, you're going to need marshalling yard with load masters,
you're going to need more humpers at each location.

This also ignores the case where loads are directly delivered to a customer. I
work in radio broadcasting and the 53' box freight truck will drive straight
to our transmitter site, even the ones up on mountains. There's _no_
driverless trailer that's going to do that and help unload the item. Also,
since the transmitter is one of four destined for other customers, there would
be no one to supervise us around other loads that we don't own and aren't
covered for.

So, you'd need to create secondary hubs that can handle these types of
deliveries with smaller trucks, hence, more jobs.

This is what I meant earlier, the logistics are really well nailed down. Owner
operators of trailers make a lot of money because they solve a lot of problems
all at once, are independent, and usually make a fuel surcharge so the price
of gas impacts them far less.

If you remove them, you're going to need a whole bunch of other infrastructure
to replace what they do. The system is labor efficient already as computers
have already impacted all the secondary parts such as freight bookers many
years ago.

Someone elsewhere mentioned companies making their own fuel dumps, which is
_highly_ optimistic due to the way the current industry is arranged and the
overhead and regulations involved in managing fuel tanks. Right now a
dispatcher has software that can track their trucks with GPS, get fuel prices
at all US locations from corporate fuel vendors, estimate current fuel volume
on the truck and determine the optimal place for the driver to refuel along
with the optimal amount for the driver to purchase. The message to the driver
is usually communicated automatically through a message system installed in
the cab, the driver can use the same system to communicate their actual
mileage and fuel volume which gets factored back into everything. With newer
trucks, the driver doesn't even need to input this information.

Sorry for the ramble, but this industry is pretty complex already. I'm not
sure having fully automated trucks is a near-term reality, nor am I sure that
the companies involved are actually aiming for that. There will be a slow
shift of _certain_ types of loads into full automation with the last mile
being driven the way it currently is with a very gradual shift to full
automation as technology advances to meet these secondary demands.

------
lordnacho
1\. The heck? Software Dev is the most common job in WA, VA, UT and CO but not
California?

2\. I'm coming round to the idea of a non-means-tested basic income. This
would mean there are no marginal effects. For instance, in many countries, if
you get paid unemployment you lose it when you find employment. This means you
might need a very high income to make it worthwhile, because you'll be losing
the benefits as well as your free time. If it was simply a non-dependent
income/tax break (if you have an income) you wouldn't get this high effective
tax rate. You could work or not work, totally up to you. You can take a side
job, try new industries, etc.

There would also be less of a circus about controlling that you're sending job
applications (adds up to a LOT of apps for jobs people may not actually want),
courses about how to write a CV, and staff to send out the money.

3) Other benefits of self-drive:

a) You don't need to drive as fast. These things won't need to sleep, so
that's a good few hours a day extra. You can drive slower, saving fuel, and
still arrive on a current logistical schedule. Driving slower also means you
can have a bunch of trucks really close to each other to save on aerodynamics.
You could write software to plan truck trains for this purpose.

b) They're all going to be electrical. I know, they aren't currently. But
electric is just taking off now, while ICE has had plenty of development. A
lot of complication in modern cars is the ICE. You need to lug a transmission
with you. You need to mix the fuel with air. With electric, you have
regenerative breaking, engines are smaller, and batteries will only get
better. You'll use less energy, which will push the economics towards slow
moving land-trains.

~~~
egypturnash
California is BIG.

California also has this one industry, it's kind of retro, you might not have
heard of it. It's mostly based in Los Angeles and they make these things
called "movies" and "television".

------
andrewmutz
Technological change obsoleting jobs is not new and has been going on for
hundreds of years: bookbinders, scribes, lamplighters, milkmen, town crier,
etc.

As each profession sunsets, these individuals find new ways to contribute to
society. Change isn't easy, but these are "people" not "truck drivers" and
will adapt.

Basic income is a separate discussion from technological change, unless there
is a clear argument why technological progress _now_ is fundamentally
different than it always has been.

~~~
wcummings
I'm pretty fed up with all the people pushing UBI. There is never not enough
work for labor to do, labor is just misallocated. I feel like every third
piece I read has some poorly thought out UBI slant thrown in for no reason.

~~~
titanomachy
I think you're right. I would really like to read the opinions of some
respected economists on the issue of automation and basic income. The question
we should be asking isn't "how do we make sure these people can still
consume", it's "how do we find a way for these people to remain valuable to
society". Or something along those lines.

~~~
rorykoehler
I always understood that to be the main power of the idea of UBI. Economically
liberated individuals will be able to choose how to be valuable to society
instead of 'choosing' to work their asses off in a dull repetitive job that
they need to survive. There are so many things that need to be done in the
world that aren't because they are not profitable. Maybe we can get stuck into
them for a start once we aren't worried about feeding the family and keeping
the lights on anymore.

------
bsaul
I'm still very skeptical on self driving vehicules to react correctly in non
traditional events happening on the road...

Like, fraying your way in a traffic jam to reach the correct lane, which
sometimes involve slow but untraditionnal paths.

Or Waiting half an hour for an accident to be cleaned, then looking at the
police officer signs telling you to move on the lane coming in the other
direction, because they've secured it for a while, etc.

I'm pretty sure we'll have a lot of autonomous vehicles stuck on the roads in
a " wait for a human driver to unlock me" mode at the beginning.

~~~
smackay
I'm sure the electronic equivalent of traffic cones will appear pretty quickly
- the cost won't be much more and the existing ones will be easy to retrofit.

I'm sure there will be a lot of interesting consequences and side-effects of
this. I'd be very interested to see the result on the natural environment in
100 years time - with great concentration of people in cities there might be
need to restore former wetlands and riverine habitats to ensure sufficient
retention of water throughout the year. The shutting down of a myriad of small
towns would take a lot of people out of the environment leaving more space for
plants and wildlife. The possibilities are endless.

~~~
jellicle
So you can just put a couple of cones across a highway and stop all traffic
for a few hours? Cool! I'll bet you can even camouflage the transmitter so
that no one can figure out why all traffic has stopped until they come out
with a really sensitive detector and realize that there's something stuck 30
feet up in the tree branches instructing all vehicles to go into emergency
stop mode.

~~~
netrus
You can stop opperations at London Heathrow within 15min with one or two phone
calls. Yes, it is that easy. People regularly don't do it because (1) what is
good for and (2) what ever it is good for, is it worth paying the damage
caused for the rest of your life?

\--- In Germany, a live TV-show with 10.000 spectators in the studio (hosted
by Heidi Klum) was canceled on Tuesday because of a fake bomb-threat-call.
Stuff like that remains the exception.

------
jmcgough
"One further important detail to consider is that truck drivers are well-paid.
They provide a middle class income of about $40,000 per year. That’s a higher
income than just about half (46%) of all tax filers, including those of
married households."

Or, in other words, they make slightly less than the average tax filer.

~~~
barrkel
average != median. They make slightly less than the median tax filer.

~~~
EliRivers
Median is an average. There are typically three averages in common use; mode,
median and (arithmetic) mean. That people generally use "average" as short for
"(arithmetic) mean average" is a colloquial shorthand.

~~~
sologoub
Mode and median are not averages, just mean is.

Mode: "Like the statistical mean and median, the mode is a way of expressing,
in a single number, important information about a random variable or a
population. The numerical value of the mode is the same as that of the mean
and median in a normal distribution, and it may be very different in highly
skewed distributions." [1]

[1]
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(statistics)](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_\(statistics\))

~~~
EliRivers
_Mode and median are not averages, just mean is._

No other way to put it; you are simply wrong. I could direct you to reference
after reference, citation after citation, but it's clear from your other
comments here that you're not willing to accept any reference or citation we
make.

~~~
sologoub
Why not at least try? I'd like to see something that is from a statistics or
math source that does not resort to "colloquial" distortion to justify such
use.

And note, I didn't down vote you in spirit of promoting a healthy discussion,
you instead have, so who's really unwilling to hear opposing opinions?

~~~
EliRivers
The best flavour of ice-cream is a matter of opinion.

This is not.

------
zaroth
There are many programs which together provide a significant economic
baseline. It's not _all_ in the form of direct cash deposits, although much of
it is, it's just that the programs are a disparate and tangled mess. That $40k
trucker's salary nets out to only about $5k more than the baseline benefits
for an unemployed adult citizen. [1] It's barely better than not working, and
you have to spend the whole week on the road! Staying home and fixing up the
house [2] while taking the subsidies will always be a better bet.

The only difference between what we have today and "Basic Income" is currently
we phase the benefits out as you start to work, obviously to disincentivize
working. You could think of "Universal Healthcare", for example, a lot like
eliminating the phase-out for Medicaid. ACA already eliminated the asset test,
now it's just an income test, so maybe that will go next. (mostly depends
who's elected in 2016)

[1]
[http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-15-2012-MarginalTa...](http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/11-15-2012-MarginalTaxRates.pdf)

[2] [http://imgur.com/a/Bnacv](http://imgur.com/a/Bnacv)

~~~
adventured
That's not the only difference.

We have a massive bureaucracy to handle all the various aspects of the
distribution of those benefits. Most of which is not necessary in a basic
income system.

The cost savings by eliminating that bureaucracy would be substantial.

~~~
icebraining
Of course, by "cost savings" you're essentially talking about a whole new lot
of jobs lost.

~~~
Programmatic
It's cool, they'll get a basic income too. ;P

------
peteretep
New rule: if you want to write about how mechanisation and automation will
affect the people, you need to - at absolute minimum - have read the entirety
of the Wikipedia article about The Industrial Revolution, and know where the
term Luddite comes from.

~~~
copsarebastards
Okay, so what's your actual criticism? You realize the vast majority of
textiles are produced by machinery, right? The luddites lost, and sank into
irrelevance.

~~~
gggmaster
If they had had basic income, maybe they would not have become Luddites?

~~~
copsarebastards
Maybe, but I don't know why the original author should be obligate to
demostrate knowledge about that in order to talk intelligently about basic
income. Remember, I'm responding to:

> _" New rule: if you want to write about how mechanisation and automation
> will affect the people, you need to - at absolute minimum - have read the
> entirety of the Wikipedia article about The Industrial Revolution, and know
> where the term Luddite comes from."_

Luddism is certainly interesting, but it's relatively small in terms of its
effects and one can certainly talk about basic income without talking about
luddism.

------
josephagoss
Is "Software Developer" really the most common job in several US states? I'm
really finding that hard to believe.

~~~
gaius
It is if you do a poll of software developers ;-)

------
lovelearning
I don't believe truck drivers will become jobless. They'll just become truck
operators. Trains are far more easy to automate, but even bullet trains in
japan still have "train drivers" to supervise them.

~~~
minthd
Train drivers are a small part of the cost of a train delivery. Truck drivers
are a substantial part of the cost.

~~~
cheald
Yup. 3.5 million professional truck drivers at $40k income (+ $3,600 in
payroll taxes + ~$12,000 in health insurance premiums + ~$2,000 in 401(k)
matches) is _$200b_ in annual costs that potentially go away. A huge portion
of the cost of many goods is in transportation, and a large amount of that
cost is human capital (as it is in any industry). Auto insurance rates will
likely drop, as well.

The supply-side effect of this is that goods will get a lot cheaper, and
because robots can drive 24 hours/day, shipping gets faster and easier.
Anything that isn't locally produced will become cheaper and more available
than it is now.

------
pnathan
Self driving trucks are going to be a real bomb in the economy, make no
mistake. I personally suspect we'll really see some labor unrest as it hits.
Millions of people will lose their jobs, and they aren't going to be prepared
to find an _entirely_ new career. I'm very much a bull on technology, but this
is something we (technologists) need to start talking to policy makers about.
Incredible disruption is coming down the pipe, and good policy needs to be
designed to cope with it.

Manufacturing automated the jobs away, by the by - it didn't really send them
overseas. That's a popular error, but wrong. The US was #1 in manufacturing
until last year.

------
tomohawk
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that if 'truck driver' was the most
prevalent job in DC (instead of 'lawyer'), we would all be better off?

------
pandler
I wonder how a ubiquitous self-driving car "cloud" will affect motorcycles. I
don't think I speak only for myself when I say that I don't just ride my
motorcycle to get from point a to point b; rather I choose to ride it for the
thrill of riding a motorcycle. I don't imagine you can completely remove the
human element from transportation without killing the thing that makes
motorcycles most enjoyable.

~~~
vinbreau
I don't think autonomous driving will kill recreational driving. Enthusiasts
will still buy motorcycles and drive the open road. I'm not a rider, but have
many friends who do and I understand the appeal. Those types are not going to
give up that lifestyle. The industry around recreational driving may shrink a
little, but will still be there to provide vehicles for those who want them.

~~~
TulliusCicero
They will continue to drive recreationally until manually driven vehicles are
banned.

------
mariusz79
The Basic Income ship has already sailed, and it's not coming back any time
soon. The main reason for this is the fact that automation is here to stay.
Every day new systems are being automated, first replacing low-skilled, low-
wage jobs. People in these job don't really have much power, knowledge, will
nor money to push the BIG agenda. Often times, they are not even aware that
such thing is being proposed. People in better paying jobs are also being
slowly replaced, but they rarely see this as threat to their jobs, but more
like productivity improvement.

When some tradesmen, or engineer loses a job because of automation, they first
try to work on their skills to stay relevant in the field. They usually won't
blame automation for being unemployed, but instead they blame their age, lack
of specific new skills, outsourcing or the economy. Without a well paying job,
they quickly drop from the affluent middle class to a poor low class. In the
mean time, their peers don't see what the real reason for this is, and they
happily continue working, hoping that it's not going to happen in their case.
They have no incentives to support BIG as they already believe that a lot of
taxes go to support the lower classes, and put unfair strain on them.

This shift from middle to low class, is already happening. To keep themselves
safe, the high middle class, and the 1%'s will support militarization of
police, and push even more entertainment options to the masses. People will
rarely revolt, as it's easy to imagine that if you're a father and see your
kids starving, you will either work even harder trying to support your family,
or you'll drink, do drugs and abuse the kids because you may feel that you
failed, and you will try to hide this feeling not only from them but from
yourself.

~~~
acdha
Those are some very sweeping claims and they'd need some explanation of why
this time will be unlike all of recorded history. Labor protection, minimum
wage, a 40 hour work week, etc. all happened after long periods of misery for
people who would have been just as erroneously dismissed as not really having
the “power, knowledge, will nor money to push the BIG agenda”.

~~~
Zigurd
I don't see the OP counting out "misery." Mincome will happen when the rest of
the people start eating the rich.

~~~
nazgul17
If the rich can delay that moment for long enough, they will not only own
automated truck drivers, but also automated armies. The poor will be in a
strong disadvantage.

------
InclinedPlane
Eventually someone will be smart enough to figure out how to build an
automated package delivery network in a city. Just imagine the economic
benefit that will have. Imagine if every company could offer shipping services
similar to Amazon Prime but at a fraction of the cost. Automated trucks would
significantly aid long haul shipping legs in such a network.

------
MaulingMonkey
Driving's just the fun part of being a trucker. Securing and balancing loads,
verifying manifests, preventative maintenance and safety inspections...

Still, plenty of opportunities for job loss.

~~~
ryanmarsh
Exactly, truck safety is the most important part of being a driver and it is
the biggest risk to the company of course. The problem is safety inspections
and securing a load properly apparently are harder to do than drive (from my
experience shadowing a safety officer). Perhaps if we have less drivers we
could transfer the responsibility of certifying the truck/load as "safe" to a
surrogate safety officer better trained for that task than your typical driver
who frankly doesn't care and will say things like "it's not my trailer" "I
didn't load that pallet" or "running the scales"

------
huuu
Related: In The Netherlands they are testing linked trucks. A kind of road
train: [http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/02/10/self-driving-trucks-
tested-...](http://www.nltimes.nl/2015/02/10/self-driving-trucks-tested-dutch-
highway/)

~~~
mrec
Not physically linked; they're talking about platooning.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_%28automobile%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platoon_%28automobile%29)

------
TheHippo
Some parts of the text look like the author just made a transcript for CPG
Grey Video "humans need not apply"
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU))

------
chisleu
"These horseless carriages are going to ruin the horse carriage economy!"

"These Semis are going to ruin the train economy!"

Eventually, there will be no need of humans to work at all for the basics of
life. Oh what a terrible time that will be...

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
Given the stall of real wages for the lower ends of the wealth spectrum, the
replacement of human labor by machines seems slated for hunger and riots,
since the human jobs aren't actually being replaced.

So yes, I expect it actually will be a rather terrible time.

------
guard-of-terra
Land between large cities increasingly turns to human desert in many places of
the world. People find no reason to continue living in small settlements and
no ecomonical backing for doing so.

Places where people lived for thousand years now become deserted.

This might be another nail in the coffin after rail (only stops at large
cities) and air (flies over entirely).

~~~
waterlesscloud
What if it works the other way round? What if automation eliminates most, if
not all, jobs, and thus reduces the appeal of living in cities where work is
easily found? What if land remains expensive in urban areas, but the economic
support for people to afford it isn't there?

What if automated delivery makes it cheaper to deliver to anywhere, so that it
becomes easier and more practical to live far apart from others?

~~~
guard-of-terra
This might as well happen. I think that decent Basic Income will cause just
that: millions of people leaving expensive cities to live cheaply in the
country.

This thought is backed by Russian dacha phenomenon.

------
adventured
This article claims that truck driver is the most common job in more than half
of all states. That's obviously false.

There are as many registered nurses as truck drivers for example. And there
are seven million teachers in the US.

"About 2.8 million workers drive trucks around. That’s a big number, but it
pales in comparison to other occupations. More than 21 million people work in
office and administrative support, more than 14 million work in sales and more
than 11 million work in food services. Nine million work in transportation or
material-moving occupations. Heck, there are nearly 9 million production
workers who actually make things."

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-
mo...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-truck-driver-isnt-the-most-common-
job-in-your-state-2015-02-12)

~~~
ska
I don't know if the claim is correct or not, but you have not demonstrated
that it is false.

The occupations you describe (nurses, teachers, office workers) can be
expected to correlate with population density in a way that just doesn't seem
to be necessary for truck drivers, or at least for many of them. Given that
population is very non uniformly distributed amongst the states, it is very
plausible to have a high proportion of long distance truck drivers living in
low population states, so this claim could be true.

~~~
djrogers
Look at some of the states in the map that claim truck driver as the highest -
CA, TX, MI, IL; these are not low-population states.

What's happened here is that the statistics are very poorly represented. Jobs
like 'teacher' and nurse are broken down to fine-grained distinctions, while
seemingly everyone who touches a truck steering wheel is lumped in as a truck
driver. Lies, damned lies, and...

~~~
ska
That's plausible, but the parent analysis doesn't hold; I wasn't addressing
the article.

I could have worded it better.

------
analog31
_We can’t stop there though, because the incomes received by these 8.2 million
people create the jobs of others._

... going further, the income of wage earners is what creates demand for the
goods being transported by the trucks. Once nobody can earn an income, there
will be no need for trucks.

------
hspak
So the concern is the economy slowing down due to the large number of current
truck drivers who are going to be out of jobs in the near future. I don't
expect there to be a sudden drop.

First comes the autopilot trucks where they still need to be manned. Sure the
drivers will likely take a hit in pay, they'll still have a job. Then comes
the fully autonomous trucks, removing the drivers although. I see this being a
gradual transition, not a cliff like the article mentions.

"Basically, the only real barrier to the immediate adoption of self-driven
trucks is purely legal in nature, not technical or economic."

I feel like this is such a huge assumption considering any type of autonomous
driving has not been seen use anywhere yet.

~~~
x0054
> I feel like this is such a huge assumption considering any type of
> autonomous driving has not been seen use anywhere yet.

It has, Google has openly admitted to have driven more than 100k miles fully
autonomously. The technology IS here, it's going to be widespread in 15-20
years.

~~~
tomcart
More than that, autonomous driving is being used increasingly in industries
like mining: [http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-
resources/caterpil...](http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-and-
resources/caterpillar-says-autonomous-trucks-are-not-just-about-cutting-
jobs-20140924-10lb25.html)

The technology developed in these situations for fleeting etc. is just as
likely to find its way into road going trucks as that from Google.

------
henrya
This article seems vaguely similar to the Luddite's destroying automated
manufacturing equipment because of the belief that it would take their jobs
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite)).
It seems that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Yes
truck driver jobs will go away but this does not mean the loss of jobs and
income on the aggregate. The economy will change and shift resources to the
now more efficient modes of transportation, which will benefit everyone.

~~~
loganmhb
Sometimes there are misunderstandings of economics involved, but just as often
that kind of resistance stems from factors that "basic economics" glosses over
or abstracts away. There's a lot of economic friction involved in shifts like
this, and the pain tends to fall on people who have less power to do anything
about it -- it's not trivial for a truck driver to go get a new job in a
different industry, and our economic system is not very well set-up to
encourage that kind of retraining and shifting, nor to support the basic needs
of people who don't have much to contribute to "the economy". (All that's
vaguely related to the fact that we've been (in the US) working more and more
hours collectively despite higher and higher productivity, so that Keynes's
prediction of a 15-hour workweek looks crazy even though his estimation of
productivity increases was basically on point...)

------
EGreg
_Robot trucks also don’t need salaries — salaries that stand to go up because
fewer and fewer people want to be truckers._

Doesn't that kind of contradict the beginning ofthe article?

In any case I've been in favor of Unconditional Basic Income for a long time
as a result of increased automation and to mitigate demand shocks for local
labor. Even anarcho-capitalist libertarians can admit that transitions within
the economy can take time that will cause massive contractionsin the money
supply of a city/state/country.

------
noreasonw
I don't know how a machine program is going to drive in my city, many times
you have to read the other driver face to know if he is going to respect the
norms.

I propose the following challange for those cars, try to cross Arc de triomphe
in Paris, or any similar place in my city and prove you risk your life
reasonably, it is not so far a experience from poker.

~~~
foobarian
It's not necessary for the automation to solve the most difficult
environments. As long as it can handle the majority of the distance it would
be quite useful. For example a small number of operators could get the trucks
to a depot near a highway, trucks could drive autonomously non-stop across the
country, and then another operator could manually move them from a receiving
depot to a local destination.

------
cja
It's a shame that the author felt the need to add the basic income proposal
onto an excellent article about autonomous vehicles. They are both very big
topics and warrant individual analysis.

------
whoisthemachine
I would not be surprised if the next car I buy is the last car I buy.
Personally, I think it will change humanity for the better, we just do not
quite grasp how or what yet.

------
chestervonwinch
What is the state of autonomous driving tech in terms of (semi)hazardous
weather conditions? Isn't this still a major barrier? Are roadside RFID chips
viable?

~~~
Retric
Differenchal GPS + Good maps is really all you need for navigation.

------
ck2
What happens with sensor interference when there are "54 million self-driving
vehicles in 2035" ?

~~~
greendesk
I expect a constant review of the sensor performance and adjustment. The truck
in question is part of a decade-old testing phase, according to the article.
This will provide a lot of information, which can help navigate the issue of
sensor interference.

Sensor malfunction was a constant worry when I worked on small robotics
projects. I hope that car companies, which have much bigger resources than I
can afford on my projects, will spend sufficient effort on making sensor
interference and various malfunctions not degrade the operation of an
autonomous vehicle.

------
jpollock
No, they won't anymore than an autopilot that can take off, fly and land has
gotten rid of pilots.

~~~
x0054
You are right, just like AI that writes finance and sports articles would
never displace journalists. Oh, hold on, it has. But surely a robotic assembly
line would never replace honest and hard working American automotive
workers..... just don't look at Detroit for conformation of that theory. At
least all of our secretary and typist jobs are still safe..... well, not so
much, but still, surely one can always go to a pharmacist school and get a
high paying job after that. Right. What, AI is doing that now too, and better
than humans ever could? Na....

Change is coming, and there are too many people who wish to hide their head in
the sand rather then embrace this change, and figure out how to deal with it.
We need a new economic model, because capitalism isn't going to work in a
world where everything is created by machines (capital) and consumers have
nothing of value to exchange for the goods that capital is producing. I am not
arguing for communism, because we all know how well that has worked in the
past. We need another solution.

Unless, if AI is going to replace all the labor, why not also replace the
consumers with AI :)

~~~
cturner

      > I am not arguing for communism, because we all know
      > how well that has worked in the past. We need another
      > solution.
    

Do you have any ideas? Capitalism uses the market to allocate resources.
Typically, when someone pitches an alternative it will boil down to some
variation of government reallocation. This has many names, but all of them are
a breeding ground for corruption and injustice.

Maybe we haven't been looking hard enough.

What if we start with your premise: capitalism is failing some regions. To
avoid ending back at government-reallocation, we could add to it a second
premise: the purpose of government is to enforce live-and-let-live and do
absolutely no more.

Within these rules, can we find something new? It might help to stop seeing
government as a God-Object to stick new functionality into, and instead
consider whether there should be other objects in play.

So far I've got nothing. But I find myself thinking of business models, rather
than social reform.

~~~
kolinko
the problem with communism was that it tried almost 100% government management
and planning. Private iniative was forbidden, even in the areas in which it
would be useful. (source: I grew up in a socialist/communist country)

In that manner, capitalism with guaranteed income is different. You want to be
rich, go ahead amd try your chances at trade, entrepreneurship etc. You see a
market opportunity - go ahead and kickstart it. On the other hamd, if you lack
a capability, or you prefer to do things that nobody will want to pay you for
(art, raising children etc), the govrnment will keep you covered.

Obviously there are problems to it, especially today when production costs are
expensive. And there are implementation problems as well. But still, one
system is the ultimate oppression, another one is ultimate freedom.

Btw. The running joke in communism was: "yeah, our system is perfect, it's
just the implememtation that sucks". I believe that communism was impossible
to get implemented correctky, whereas capitalism + minimum income can be. Not
today, but in a few years when the goods will be even cheaper.

~~~
blumkvist
The problem with communism was that people were locked-out of the decisions.
They had no idea what's going on. The reason for that was not that the
leadership imposed it. It worked out that way, because the government made a
promise to the common people:

"We will take care of your needs, you just be as productive as you can. You
will be happy, we will take care for you".

So the people did. The government gave bread to the masses and the masses
didn't care about much else. The ones who cared about more were deemed to be
dangerous to the communist society and were killed.

How is the promise made by basic income proponents different that the
communist promise?

~~~
waterlesscloud
What if it's automation and not people being productive?

------
copsarebastards
"Apple already has technology that may lend itself to an electric car and
expertise managing a vast supply chain. The company has long researched
battery technology for use in its iPhones, iPads and Macs. The mapping system
it debuted in 2012 can be used for navigation…"

The mapping system Apple debuted in 2012 cannot reliably be used for
navigation.

------
Bulkington
Journaist who covered the Freightiner/State of Nevada annuncment last week
here. The article's summary of the current state of truck autonomy is quite
cogent There's an explainer link below for those looking for more detail, but
the point Daimler Trucks execs and engineers emphasized is that they have no
plans to pursue Level 4 (no driver needed) autonomy. (Although I don't recall
that they were pushed on a timeframe for that commitment.)

So, as is, this is very much a tool to benefit drivers; i.e., cruise control
with steering. But the critical point, as the article notes before taking the
leap truck drivers are soon to disappear, is that trucking is big business
(collectively) and if this technology can be suppoerted by the business case,
then it will be adopted as rapidly as pubic policy permits.

However, the author doesn't take into consideration a couple of things:

1: The trucking industry is having a very hard time finding drivers (waaaay
tough gig for over-the-road guys). While this may support the notion that
trucking companies will rush to adopt autonomus vehicle tech, it takes away
some of the punch of his basic income thesis: people don't want to do this
job.

Truck drivers come from the same pool as construction laborers and factory
workers, and when the economy is good there's a driver shortage because
workers prefer jobs that let them go home every night compared to sleeping in
a truck for weeks at a time. So in this case, basic income is, at best, a
trucking industry subsidy. Otherwise, it's make-work.

2: The trucking industry is very fragmented. We're all familiar with many of
the big fleet names we see on trailers every day, and while these mega-
carriers haul a large percentage of the freight, they're far outnumbered by
the number of companies with five or fewer trucks. And there's a great deal of
conflict between the policies sought by well-capitalized larger firms (with
money to invest in new tech and often lobby to have it manadated) and the
Joe's Trucking Cos who are one breakdown or accident from going out of
business. But Joe stays in businees because because he fills a niche the big
guys aren't interested in.

And Joe ain't going to buy a robot, not that he'd mind staying in the office
while his truck deivers freight without him, but because he can't afford it.

So either the fully driverless truck is going to become so operationally
efficient that big trucking companies can move into these niches and fill spot
demand, or the technology is going to be so affordabe that the little guy
adopts it and then uses his niche expertise to grow is business. Both are wins
for the overall economy, with the latter actually staving off a further
concentration of capital--which I guess would be a good thing for the basic
income crowd. (And as a journlist, I assure you I'm not averse to the
concept.)

[http://news.trucker.com/technology/freightliner-s-
autonomous...](http://news.trucker.com/technology/freightliner-s-autonomous-
truck-explained-drawing-board-road)

~~~
mariusz79
> But Joe stays in businees because because he fills a niche the big guys
> aren't interested in.

But the big guys with their automated trucks will be possibly cheaper, and all
these niche jobs jobs could potentially go to them.

Walmart alone has around 6000 trucks. When they start using autonomous trucks,
there will be many unemployed truckers competing for these niche jobs.

------
blumkvist
Great article until the very end... Basic income is not the answer to this.
Basic income will lead to terrible social decay caused by apathy and laziness,
fueling even more government corruption and ultimately, totalitarianism.

I can't help but think all of this talk and rhetoric in recent years is
deliberate propaganda, conditioning left-leaning people.

I have seen a number of websites posted on HN, especially in comments, which
are overly rhetoric and nudge the reader towards utopian left ideas. The sites
are well developed both in the application and in the information architecture
sense. They don't seem to have revenue model and saying that tracking their
financing proved difficult, would be an understatement.

Please remember that changing the social framework is a VERY delicate matter.
Oftentimes things sound very good on paper, but are not practical at all.
Basic income sounds dangerously close to "From each according to his ability,
to each according to his need". When people believed this can happen, it ended
terribly. Not because of the specific people in charge at the time.
Socialism/Communism as a model is doomed to fail because of human nature.

When you make social policy, you have to think about the lowest common
denominator and currently, it is very low indeed.

~~~
egypturnash
Anecdotes are not data, but here is my anecdote about Not Having To Work.

A few years ago, I came into enough money that I don't have to work for
several years. I have not been spending this time just lying on the beach;
instead, I've been spending this time doing a thing I dearly want to do, which
doesn't bring in much money. I leverage the skills I gained in the time I
spent hanging around the animation industry to draw weird comics.

I have been able to turn this into something that mostly pays my rent over the
past four years. I could not have done this if I had to spend the bulk of my
time working for someone else.

Sure, some people will sit around and play video games all day. But I think
you may be underestimating the number of people who have a thing they'd be
spending a lot of time working on if not for that pesky day job. Even the most
burnt-out and broken-seeming homeless folks.

~~~
blumkvist
You are probably in the top %1 of the specimen. People who are naturally
gifted are not the problem. The problem are the ones who are not. They don't
aspire to achieve like you or me. Read very carefully the last line of my
comment. Social policy needs to be made with the lowest common denominator in
mind.

You can look at education for cues. You have experimental programs that show
tremendous improvement over current ones. But they are done with the top 1% of
teachers tutoring the top 1% of kids. When they try to roll it out to a random
school, they fail miserably.

------
MichaelCrawford
Ever seen the movie "Hoffa"? Recall the scene when he's being transported to
prison.

------
MichaelCrawford
The great thing about self-driving suicide bombs is how many lives will be
spared.

