5 ms·

> Yes, on the contrary, if the labor market wasn't tight, there would be little investment in automated trucks in the first place. If automated trucks result i

> Yes, on the contrary, if the labor market wasn't tight, there would be little investment in automated trucks in the first place. If automated trucks result in a lower capital and operational cost on behalf of the business, even with an ample supply of qualified truckers, why wouldn't that necessitate investment in that space?

Ericson2314 5y ago
They rather take the risk of unproven tech if it means they need to invest less, than go with the more expensive but proven option. Keeping in mind the relationship between liquidity and risk, this shows they don't need new capacity too soon/desperately. Also keep in mind things like making delivery cheaper in city than suburbans. There's lots of small cheap (in terms of investment, if not revenue hit) ways to make things more efficient. In that case, the fact that they rather make shipping rates artificially flat for appearance's sake says something about the long-term large-scale laxity of the economy, these recent specific bottlenecks not withstanding.
lazide 5y ago
Because the odds of automated trucks costing less from a capital perspective are near zero, and operational costs are highly correlated with labor costs - if truckers are cheap, no one is likely to bother with maintaining and keeping likely fussy self driving vehicles operating
adrianN 5y ago
That is a relatively big if. It is possible that R&D and the cost of the hardware needed for autonomous driving amortize to a bigger value than just paying some person minimum wage to drive the truck.
- slt2021 5y ago
  some truckers I know of earn 6 figures, they are definitely not minimum wage earners. Plus many of them are self-employed and pay very little to no tax
  - justinator 5y ago
    Usually self employed pay far more taxes, what’s different about these truck drivers? I assume they’re not cheating on their taxes.
    - bigfudge 5y ago
      Is that really the case? It’s not so in the UK
      - lazide 5y ago
        It is definitely the case in the US. They even call it the self-employment tax (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...)
      - HPsquared 5y ago
        In the UK there have been some tax changes which affected truckers and other self employed contractors: IR35.
HWR_14 5y ago
> If automated trucks result in a lower capital and operational cost on behalf of the business, even with an ample supply of qualified truckers, why wouldn't that necessitate investment in that space? No. The premium on known legal liability and working tech would outweigh a certain amount of opex (and capex can just be amortized into opex). And the research would need to pay itself off at several multiples. If the truckers were making minimum wage, it's unlikely that the amount you could charge would justify the investment ever. If they were all making $500/hr it would justify a huge research project.
- coryrc 5y ago
  Being able to drive continuously is worth it in many cases even if it didn't directly save money on driver costs. 1/2 the time spent in transit is half the capital costs for a given level of goods moved.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    The upper bound on how much "driving continuously" is worth is a 2x labor price tag (two drivers per truck taking turns).
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      Isn't that more of a lower bound? You're assuming the drivers can each drive 12 hours at a time, and they wouldn't ask for any increased pay for the worse conditions (having to be continuously on the move, sleeping on the move).
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        Continuously on the move/sleeping in the move is a benefit for truckers. It's not a cost. The issue is, if we are already labor constrained, what is 2x the new going rate for drivers with a sudden doubling in demand. That said, the benefits also assume that for some reason the only time the goods are idle is on a truck, which makes no sense in many cases.
    - 5y ago

Ericson2314 5y ago

They rather take the risk of unproven tech if it means they need to invest less, than go with the more expensive but proven option. Keeping in mind the relationship between liquidity and risk, this shows they don't need new capacity too soon/desperately. Also keep in mind things like making delivery cheaper in city than suburbans. There's lots of small cheap (in terms of investment, if not revenue hit) ways to make things more efficient. In that case, the fact that they rather make shipping rates artificially flat for appearance's sake says something about the long-term large-scale laxity of the economy, these recent specific bottlenecks not withstanding.

lazide 5y ago

Because the odds of automated trucks costing less from a capital perspective are near zero, and operational costs are highly correlated with labor costs - if truckers are cheap, no one is likely to bother with maintaining and keeping likely fussy self driving vehicles operating

adrianN 5y ago

That is a relatively big if. It is possible that R&D and the cost of the hardware needed for autonomous driving amortize to a bigger value than just paying some person minimum wage to drive the truck.

slt2021 5y ago
some truckers I know of earn 6 figures, they are definitely not minimum wage earners. Plus many of them are self-employed and pay very little to no tax
- justinator 5y ago
  Usually self employed pay far more taxes, what’s different about these truck drivers? I assume they’re not cheating on their taxes.
  - bigfudge 5y ago
    Is that really the case? It’s not so in the UK
    - lazide 5y ago
      It is definitely the case in the US. They even call it the self-employment tax (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/self-employment-tax-social-security-and-medicare-taxes https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...)
    - HPsquared 5y ago
      In the UK there have been some tax changes which affected truckers and other self employed contractors: IR35.

HWR_14 5y ago

> If automated trucks result in a lower capital and operational cost on behalf of the business, even with an ample supply of qualified truckers, why wouldn't that necessitate investment in that space? No. The premium on known legal liability and working tech would outweigh a certain amount of opex (and capex can just be amortized into opex). And the research would need to pay itself off at several multiples. If the truckers were making minimum wage, it's unlikely that the amount you could charge would justify the investment ever. If they were all making $500/hr it would justify a huge research project.

coryrc 5y ago
Being able to drive continuously is worth it in many cases even if it didn't directly save money on driver costs. 1/2 the time spent in transit is half the capital costs for a given level of goods moved.
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  The upper bound on how much "driving continuously" is worth is a 2x labor price tag (two drivers per truck taking turns).
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Isn't that more of a lower bound? You're assuming the drivers can each drive 12 hours at a time, and they wouldn't ask for any increased pay for the worse conditions (having to be continuously on the move, sleeping on the move).
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      Continuously on the move/sleeping in the move is a benefit for truckers. It's not a cost. The issue is, if we are already labor constrained, what is 2x the new going rate for drivers with a sudden doubling in demand. That said, the benefits also assume that for some reason the only time the goods are idle is on a truck, which makes no sense in many cases.
  - 5y ago