Unless the switching costs are trivial, streaming doesn't provide flexibility.

If you have people being forced to train under multiple financial threats (unemployment eligibility, severance), that is enough evidence of a qualified person. The job is then handed to someone that has no qualifications prior to the involuntary knowledge transfer - aside from being a non-citizen.

How about removing the ability to do that to someone? That is, give the at-will provision some teeth for the employee side of things so that quitting can mean something.

...which will be worse than the local team.

They just want to see things as less permanent, which means more easily managed people. In turn, that means people are worse off overall for lack of access to opportunities that go a more conventional route.

That's not a good thing given how globalizing a car makes it blander than an unsalted cracker.

When you're dealing with non-human drivers, it's a case of the law not catching up to account for software error.

That tends to blow the "rule" out the window.

Interesting to see that there's very few brave individuals willing to put a name to their advice of removing all humans from driving.

How about adjusting the car to act more in tune with the humans on the road?

No thank you, but that's no W series. It might be a bridge between the T series and the full-fledged W series, but it is not the typical workstation-type laptop. The W series was meant to be a larger, traditional, no-compromise laptop limited only by technological progress - not as some cut-down box.

Speaking from the perspective of someone that descended from a farming/mining/manufacturing/computing family tree:

A bit of historical perspective would help.

  The transitions from agriculture and (early) mining to manufacturing left a wide margin of time to retrain. International threats largely DNE while plenty of work existed to receive and integrate such individuals over time.

  The transition from manufacturing to early computing represented a narrower escape. Early computing was an escape hatch that provided relative stability in a much shorter timespan. This point marks the beginning of the effort to reduce overall stability.

  Today, the emphasis is in removing any remaining stability as it also represents a higher cost. The Aspen Institute's invention of the "sharing economy" buzzword exists only to sugarcoat the effort to remove any large-scale stability in work arrangements.

Want to know what works? Stop trying to remove stability from work arrangements.

From ~2007/2008 to present day, the rallying cry has been to kill off anything with stability and replace it with high instability.

When individuals have a stable form of employment, they are less controllable. Less stable forms of employment, such as mentioned in my reply, impart more control over the person.

Aside from very few lines of work, provide some certainty by training the people already in existence. Another option is to adjust compensation to get the people you want.

There is no skills gap, just pay and training gaps.

Yet you advocate a new aristocracy, based on business ownership and friendliness. That is, individuals and governments are obligated to bow before the interests of business owners - lest they threaten economic devastation.

Except that the current, human-eliminating, approach to robotics cuts off the ladder.

You want automation? Fine - have a plan for integrating the displaced in some snark-free way. Otherwise, enjoy being on the business end of a malfunctioning ED-209.

What you are saying is that you're willing to sweep the displaced under the rug and forget that they exist - since there's something new around the corner.

Manipulate the numbers the right way and you can get absurd conclusions like this article.