Andrew Heaton

My point, Tim, was not that there's going to be any problems with it.

It was just that overall, you still want progress, automation, dynamicism to happen.

You want to make sure that it's slow so that people can adjust.

So I'm open to the idea that we need to have things in place to make sure that the transition doesn't happen so rapidly.

If you were to automate all cars tomorrow, you would have a lot of problems, right?

The driver's the most common job in America.

My point was not that, you know, screw them.

That's not what I'm saying here.

What I'm saying is that overall, you do want to have that dynamism and innovation, right?

And so the issue—

It's good that I'm able to podcast and talk with you.

It's good that we're all doing this.

If we were living 100 years ago, we'd all be farmers.

It's a good thing that we've been able to make those jobs more efficient.

And I see that as a corollary to the free trade issue, where we're able to get more money, we're able to specialize more, we're able to be more productive.

Is it OK for companies to go bankrupt?

Is it OK?

pitch me on this because i i'd like if you get laid off at fifty yet and your your job no longer exists it's gonna be very difficult to find a job with a comparable income to get trying to happen i don't disagree on this right and so what what what would that policy was what would you do to taper what would that look like like what you're saying if we have a bunch of optimist robots that can make cars how we tapered off yet and you can hide you can you can you can only bring on ten percent of the optimist bots per year or something

Or every two years.

There would be like an automation law.