The recent proposal by Waymo to bring its driverless taxi service to San Diego ran into some objections from the city. While there are legitimate local concerns about this venture, including safety and replacing drivers, there is a much larger picture that really should attract our attention.
The issue is not whether we can or should impede the practical application of innovation, but how we can embrace innovation with the least collateral damage.
Innovation requires change, and change usually comes with some pain. But innovation is as inevitable as aging and the long-term benefits will usually outweigh the impacts. The challenge is to maximize the benefits while minimizing the bad stuff.
In the case of job replacement, it is obviously important to cushion the job losses. But, to stand in the way of innovation, solely to protect jobs, is foolhardy and unreasonable.
What sparked this discussion was a recent statement by San Diego City Councilmember, Sean Elo-Rivera. Speaking as chair of the MTS Taxi Advisory Committee, Elo-Rivera urged that the city oppose the proposal by Waymo to employ driverless ride-hailing services in select areas of the city.
One might expect that the objections would be based on safety concerns. Waymo’s safety record based on operations in five cities suggests that such concerns are not justified. Nevertheless, a AAA survey, released in February, said that 60% of drivers in the U.S. are afraid to ride in a driverless vehicle, as opposed to just 13% who are okay with using them.
Interestingly, Elo-Rivera’s objections were not based on safety at all. His main concern, and the basis of his strong resistance, is that driverless taxis would put people out of work. Whether he takes this position based on personal compassion for professional drivers (as he claims) or is concerned about losing votes, he does raise an existential question. How should the public react to technology advances that impact the availability of jobs in service and other industries?
The Waymo driverless taxi is just one example of the constant advancements in technology — most of which will negatively impact employment. Is this reason enough to place roadblocks in the path of innovation? Or should we equate the resistance to job displacement technology to the futile effort to resist adjustment to rising sea levels, increasing temperatures, and melting glaciers?
Specifically, whether we embrace innovation or not, any attempt to impede technical advances will be fruitless. In order to co-exist in an environment of enhanced technology, might it be a more positive move to focus on adjustments that improve and widen the benefits to society and community, rather than to protect jobs associated with outmoded skills?
If so, what is society’s obligation, if any, to compensate labor groups who will be disadvantaged or put at risk of losing their means of employment?
While tackling this question, here are a few things that I learned researching this issue that need to be considered:
There is a lot of public interest in the issue of innovation and job-displacement.
Many of the views are political, from Progressive to Libertarian, i.e. protectionism vs. free-market.
Based on empirical data on autonomous vehicles (AV) currently in service, safety need not be a key factor in permitting or denying AV implementations
Also, data from current AV service indicates that AV rides are being priced higher than equivalent rideshare rides. That would indicate that customers are not choosing AV rides in order to save money. There must be other factors that prompt the choice.
Rideshare drivers (RD) are in an unusual class, in that most prefer to work part-time, unusual hours, or as a second job. Nevertheless, some RDs have organized, such as Rideshare Drivers United (RDU), or have gained some union-level support.
Looking at the current Waymo application in San Diego, it is inappropriate and unfair to jump to political positions before understanding and considering all of the factors. Furthermore, it would be negligent for the Taxi Advisory Committee to conduct hearings without the participation of all stakeholders, including representatives of the RDs, the AV firms, and the public.
The TAC needs to also avoid favoritism in choosing which form of transportation gets supported, or in playing politics, such as fishing for union votes.
It is virtually impossible to successfully stand in the way of innovation and progress. It is much more beneficial to offer a proactive response to such challenges than to “tilt at windmills.” Innovation should not be treated as the enemy.
On the other hand, a caring society would respond to the challenges by seeking to mitigate collateral damage, including job displacement. There will be arguments as to how to compensate injured parties, if at all, and who should pay for that compensation. If the initial premise is to seek fair mitigation, then it should be possible to resolve this challenge.
To be truly proactive, workers, and the institutions that support them, need to recognize that change is a constant, and that change usually requires new skills from the workforce. Labor, educational institutions and the government must work together to get ahead of the curve.
Workers must realize that no jobs are guaranteed and that they will likely have to suffer gaps in their employment and make changes in their work. Schools and the government need to forecast future employment challenges and build a properly trained workforce for the future.
There are more job-endangering innovations coming down the pike. If we can’t find a way to deal with autonomous taxis, how will we adjust to the paradigm changes due to the AI revolution?
Rancho Bernardo resident, Levine is a retired project management consultant and the author of three books on the subject. Write to Levine at levine-rbnews@earthlink.net