Janeese Lewis George, a D.C. councilmember and the city's presumptive next mayor, has come out against pending legislation that would allow autonomous ride-share vehicles onto city streets, citing the technology's potential to eliminate the jobs of ride-share human drivers. 

"DC is facing a jobs crisis. Rushing the legalization of autonomous vehicles is irresponsible given the anticipated AI-related job displacement and disruptions that put countless workers at risk," she said on X yesterday.  

DC is facing a jobs crisis.

Rushing the legalization of autonomous vehicles is irresponsible given the anticipated AI-related job displacement and disruptions that put countless workers at risk.

— Janeese Lewis George (@Janeese4DC) October 15, 2026

In a follow-up post, she said that the D.C. Council should delay consideration of a pending bill that would allow Waymo, which is currently testing its technology with human safety operators on District streets, to offer autonomous rides to the public.  

Ever since Lewis George won a commanding victory in D.C.'s Democratic mayoral primary earlier this year, pundits and wonks have been trying to read the tea leaves on how the Democratic Socialist will govern. 

D.C.'s economy is currently in a rough spot. Unemployment is high. The housing market is down. Population growth is slowing.  

Lewis George's comments about Waymo suggest the mayor has a deeply mistaken view about the effects and benefits of technological innovation. Contrary to her contention, Waymo legalization is unlikely to exacerbate a "jobs crisis" for at least three reasons. 

The first reason she's wrong is that very few D.C. residents work full-time as ride-share drivers. On her Capital Commonsense Substack, Ashley Schapitl reports that, by Lewis George's own estimate, there are only 200 District residents who work full-time as ride-share drivers.

For comparison's sake, the District has a labor force of roughly 400,000 people. So even if Waymo displaced all human drivers in the District, it would be a statistical nonevent. 

Few headlines, for instance, reported that D.C.'s labor force shrank by 1,000 people between May and June. Neither did many outlets report that the labor force grew by roughly 600 people between July and August. 

Yet here the mayor is talking about a "jobs crisis" over what would be an even smaller change in the number of employed workers in the city. 

The second reason not to fear an exacerbated "jobs crisis" as a result of Waymo legalization is that autonomous vehicles (A.V.s) will not completely replace human rideshare drivers in the foreseeable future. 

In the cities where Waymo has been active for years, A.V.s are still responsible for a minority of rideshare rides. 

That's the case in Phoenix, where Waymo has been offering autonomous commercial service since 2020. In an article from April, Business Insider cites one study that put Waymo's market share at 16 percent of ride-share rides. 

In other words, 84 percent of ride-share rides are still being performed by humans a full six years after A.V.s came onto the scene. 

That isn't to say the impacts of A.V.s are necessarily positive for human drivers' earnings.

Another study by Gridwise from August 2025 found that A.V.s appeared to be marginally reducing drivers' hourly pay and number of trips per hour. That's evidence of the market for rides becoming more competitive, but it's not, as of yet, evidence of a job apocalypse. 

Network design matters too. In places like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Waymo is a standalone competitor to traditional ride-share companies like Uber and Lyft. In Austin and Phoenix, Waymo partners with Uber to offer rides on hybrid human-and-A.V. networks. 

A report by EnoTrans, funded by a grant from Lyft, found that the later cities' hybrid networks actually increased human drivers' trips per hour. Their pay-per-hour fell, albeit less steeply than in cities without hybrid networks. 

All of that is to say that while Waymo, as a competitor to human-operated ride-share services, shouldn't be expected to have a positive impact on drivers' earnings. It shouldn't be expected to have a catastrophic impact on them either. 

The third and final reason that Lewis George is wrong to think that Waymo will worsen a coming "jobs crisis" is that Waymo's employment impacts are not limited to its effect on competing human drivers. 

If Waymo earns any market share at all, it'll be because it's offering some travelers a better transportation option than the ones that currently exist. Increased ease of travel within the city would be expected to raise employment levels, not lower them. 

If Waymo makes it easier or cheaper for people to get from home to the office or from the office to their kids' school, they might be more willing to live in D.C. over Arlington or Silver Spring. If it's more convenient to get to the movies or dinner, residents will be more willing to patronize local businesses. 

None of that even touches on the economic and human benefits of Waymo's likely positive impact on road safety. 

The direct effects of Waymo on drivers' employment must be weighed against all the other economic activity that autonomous vehicles will facilitate. 

In the long run, the economic effects of autonomous vehicles may well be revolutionary. In the foreseeable future, they'll make the market for for-hire rides slightly more competitive. 

A reasonable assumption then is that Waymo will have a modest, but positive, impact on overall economic activity and employment in the District, even if it has a modest, but negative, impact on the small number of full-time ride-share drivers who live here. 

If the new mayor can't even tolerate that level of economic disruption, that does not portend good things for D.C.'s economy under a Lewis George administration. 

The post Presumptive D.C. Mayor Janeese Lewis George Demands Halt to Waymo Legalization To Protect Drivers' Jobs appeared first on Reason Magazine.

La dimostrazione eclatante che la posizione cosiddetta pacifista sulla guerra scatenata dalla Russia contro l’Ucraina è, quando va bene, ipocrita si è avuta in queste ore di ennesimo e vile attacco di Donald Trump e Elon Musk all’Ucraina, al suo presidente e al suo popolo.

Trump ha stretto un grottesco, inutile, e inapplicabile accordo con Vladimir Putin sul gasolio russo, in violazione delle leggi del suo Congresso e al solo fine propagandistico interno per scaricare sull’Ucraina, e non sulla guerra in Iran, le responsabilità del prezzo alto della benzina a poche settimane dal voto di metà mandato. Inoltre, da Mar-a-Lago, Trump ha ripreso a insultare e a minacciare Volodymyr Zelensky, dopo qualche mese di pausa, e ha smesso di passare agli ucraini parte delle informazioni di intelligence che servono ad anticipare la difesa della contraerea missilistica. Musk, invece, ha rallentato la connessione di Starlink in Ucraina e ha minacciato di staccare del tutto la spina, costringendo gli ucraini a rinunciare alle azioni belliche con i droni che così tanti danni hanno fatto alle infrastrutture offensive, energetiche e di approvvigionamento russe.

Il risultato della bravata del duo Trump-Musk è che i missili russi ora entrano nello spazio aereo ucraino indisturbati e poi colpiscono i civili ucraini come mai prima d’ora.

In linea generale, se le parole avessero un senso, un pacifista dovrebbe chiedere all’aggressore di fermare gli attacchi e non all’aggredito di smettere di difendersi, invece mai in quasi quattro anni abbondanti di guerra russa all’Ucraina ci sono state iniziative dei leader progressisti italiani o manifestazioni del fronte pacifista per chiedere alla Russia di fermare la guerra.

Ormai è diventato normale, malgrado sia un atteggiamento controintuitivo e moralmente osceno, che il sedicente pacifista italiano chieda all’Europa di non sostenere più l’aggredito, di non fornirgli le batterie antimissili che difendono la popolazione civile dall’attacco russo, e di inviare in Ucraina, anziché missili, un inviato di pace, come se fosse l’Ucraina a volere le guerra, al fine poi di intavolare una trattativa che la Russia non ha nessuna intenzione di intraprendere e che ogni giorno rigetta in tutte le lingue, a meno che la soluzione diplomatica sia la completa resa degli ucraini.

Questo è il teatrino dell’orrore cui assistiamo da oltre quattro anni, inscenato soprattutto da una parte della sinistra che si riempie la bocca della parola pace mentre con i fatti lavora per la continuazione della guerra russa.

Le ultimissime intemerate di Trump e Musk contro Zelensky e l’Ucraina scoperchiano però l’ipocrisia politica di quello che a buon diritto viene chiamato Campo Lavrov.

Qui non si tratta di cambiare linea politica sul “no alle armi” o sulla necessità di far terminare la guerra, né di mettere in difficoltà i leader dei partiti che provano a mantenere unita la coalizione elettorale. Qui ci sono i due più spudorati esponenti della destra nazionalista globale che, prendendosi una pausa dal gettare nel caos il mondo e dal sostenere tutti i movimenti neonazi del pianeta, minacciano l’aggredito, accarezzano l’aggressore cercando anche di fare affari personali, e mettono in pratica un piano di disimpegno per massimizzare le vittime civili ucraine.

Per i capi della sinistra “pacifista” non potrebbe esserci un’occasione più facile e doverosa di questa per criticare Trump e Musk e difendere le vittime innocenti della guerra, anche senza cambiare la linea politica sullo stop all’invio delle armi difensive.

Eppure non c’è stato nessun leader del Campo Largo o del fronte intellettuale pacifista che in queste ore abbia criticato Trump e Musk, dimostrando così in modo plastico l’impostura della posizione “pacifista”, ma anche la fine della gloriosa sinistra anti totalitaria, e la trasformazione del Campo Largo non solo in Campo Lavrov ma anche in Campo Mar-a-Largo.

Un fronte progressista che rifiuta di difendere l’aggredito, che non disturba mai l’aggressore, e che non riesce nemmeno a criticare i due più grandi fascistoni del pianeta impegnati a facilitare l’imperialismo russo può essere definito in qualsiasi modo, tranne che con l’aggettivo progressista.

Il più grande intellettuale della sinistra anti totalitaria, il compianto Christopher Hitchens, aveva svelato la vera natura dei pacifisti pro Saddam Hussein. Una lezione valida anche nel 2026. Oggi i pacifisti italiani non solo pretendono la resa degli aggrediti ucraini e non fanno niente per fermare l’aggressore russo, ma non trovano nemmeno il modo di censurare le mascalzonate di Trump e Musk contro l’Ucraina e l’Europa. Come scriveva Hitchens, questi non sono pacifisti, «non vogliono la pace, sono a favore della guerra, e tifano per gli avversari».

L'articolo Quelli che non criticano Trump sull’Ucraina non sono pacifisti, ma guerrafondai che tifano per gli avversari proviene da Linkiesta.it.

This week, Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi discuss the federal government's raid of Rep. Ilhan Omar's Washington, D.C., residence and question the temporary pause of U.S. intelligence support to Ukraine. Next, the boys exchange mishaps—Robby lost his phone, and Christian had a bad experience at a local restaurant—before decrying the Pentagon's idea to livestream the execution of the Fort Hood shooter. Next, Christian gives a rave review for the new movie Primetime, and Robby shares a positive reaction to Greta Gerwig's first trailer for The Magician's Nephew. Finally, they wrap with some cultural commentary, striving to answer the age-old question of whether or not women dress like "whores" at the gym.

0:00—The politicized raid on Omar

12:40—U.S.-Ukraine dynamics

26:55—Do not lose your phone.

39:10—Christian might leave a two-star restaurant review.

46:00—Livestreaming the Fort Hood shooter's execution was a grotesque idea.

53:20—Christian wholeheartedly recommends Primetime.

1:02:40—Robby enjoyed the trailer for The Magician's Nephew. 

1:10:10—Shane Gillis' Saturday Night Live monologue

The post Ilhan Omar vs. DHS, Russia vs. Ukraine, Shane Gillis vs. Women appeared first on Reason Magazine.