"The aim and purpose of every technological advance is to kill jobs."
Your regular readers know what you mean, but that is the kind of quote some people will find to hit you over the head.
Although certainly not as snappy, I think the complete thought is that the aim and purpose of every technological advance is to kill some jobs but, by cutting costs allowing the business to cut prices to gain market share, that saves customers money which they can spend or invest elsewhere and thereby increase other jobs.
Best example is that 200 years ago a large portion, let's say 80%, of the population had to be farmers to produce enough food, and many people didn't get enough to eat anyway. The percentage of agricultural workers now in the population is tiny due to technological advances that slashed jobs, but there certainly isn't mass unemployment as a result - lower cost of food means people have more money for other goods and services, which require jobs to create.
If technology reduces jobs in one industry, by increasing productivity (which also increases wages) it creates other jobs to more than replace what was cut.
As Tim has often said in the past: the invention of the tractor created the NHS. If 80% of the population were working on fields, it would be completely impossible to have mass health-care. Destroy agricultural jobs and you now have 80% of the population available to become doctors, dentists, nurses, etc.
It’s a shame this was settled rather than going to court to have the legal basis for any compensation claim tested.
The word “aggressively” entered the market is perhaps significant. Is the claim that Uber entered the market using a predatory pricing model, running losses in order to subsidise fares so as to drive the incumbent competition out of the market with a view to increasing prices later? If so, might that be seen as undesirable anti-competitive practice even if consumers benefit in the short term?
While there may be an element of this I suspect most of the case is built on good old fashioned protectionism, but it would have been interesting to see the matter fully explored.
The aim and purpose of every technological advance is to kill costs.
"The aim and purpose of every technological advance is to kill jobs."
Your regular readers know what you mean, but that is the kind of quote some people will find to hit you over the head.
Although certainly not as snappy, I think the complete thought is that the aim and purpose of every technological advance is to kill some jobs but, by cutting costs allowing the business to cut prices to gain market share, that saves customers money which they can spend or invest elsewhere and thereby increase other jobs.
Best example is that 200 years ago a large portion, let's say 80%, of the population had to be farmers to produce enough food, and many people didn't get enough to eat anyway. The percentage of agricultural workers now in the population is tiny due to technological advances that slashed jobs, but there certainly isn't mass unemployment as a result - lower cost of food means people have more money for other goods and services, which require jobs to create.
If technology reduces jobs in one industry, by increasing productivity (which also increases wages) it creates other jobs to more than replace what was cut.
As Tim has often said in the past: the invention of the tractor created the NHS. If 80% of the population were working on fields, it would be completely impossible to have mass health-care. Destroy agricultural jobs and you now have 80% of the population available to become doctors, dentists, nurses, etc.
"Your regular readers know what you mean, but that is the kind of quote some people will find to hit you over the head."
Fair - but then I'm trying to shock people into actually thinking about this. It's a deliberately extreme formulation.
Ahh,
"The company also used unlicensed cars with unaccredited drivers ... misled regulators and geoblocked authorities, lawyers claimed."
Bog standard Uber behaviour, really. Completely ignore any regs or licensing issues, and brush off the local government.
Whether the existing regulations were a good idea or not, is a different matter.
It’s a shame this was settled rather than going to court to have the legal basis for any compensation claim tested.
The word “aggressively” entered the market is perhaps significant. Is the claim that Uber entered the market using a predatory pricing model, running losses in order to subsidise fares so as to drive the incumbent competition out of the market with a view to increasing prices later? If so, might that be seen as undesirable anti-competitive practice even if consumers benefit in the short term?
While there may be an element of this I suspect most of the case is built on good old fashioned protectionism, but it would have been interesting to see the matter fully explored.