4 ms·

"Why trucking can't deliver the goods?" Sounds more like "Why government can't effectively improve markets by simply deregulating them."

verisimi 5y ago
Or decrease fuel duties to decrease the cost of deliveries - surely an obvious answer in inflationary times, as it will decrease costs everywhere.
- jeromegv 5y ago
  Did you read the article? The issue is cost of labor being too cheap and not being compensated for waiting time which leads to huge turnover rate. How’s reducing fuel duties helping the workers?
  - diordiderot 5y ago
    The extra profits from increased consumption will trickle down in the form of new jobs that don't pay a living wage either
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  Or people reduce consumption and adjust their expectations as they reduce their above average consumption relative to the rest of their own city, state, country, world’s population.
- ekidd 5y ago
  While that's certainly an excellent idea, it doesn't directly address any of the serious problems discussed in the article. Long-haul truckers appear to be independent contractors with zero market power relative to trucking firms. They're exempt from minimum wages and benefits, and they're required to lease their trucks from the trucking companies, then pay to maintain them. Under these circumstances, reducing fuel duties might slightly reduce costs to consumers. But it doesn't look like it would help the truckers one bit, because they have no negotiating leverage. Any new money injected into the system would just be extracted by the shipping companies. Or that's my understanding of the article. I'm not saying you're doing this, but I am frankly tired of knee-jerk, simple answers to tricky problems. If someone tells me the answer is always deregulation or lower taxes or whatever, and their advice never changes depending on the situation at hand, I'm increasingly assuming that they're pushing a simplistic, abstract theory. Given the state of the world today, we need to stop repeating slogans and start thinking hard about how to solve the problems we face.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > I'm not saying you're doing this, but I am frankly tired of knee-jerk, simple answers to tricky problems. This one does have a knee jerk simple answer. Increase pay to attract and retain sufficient talent. The root problem is are consumers willing to pay extra for the end goods so that enough truckers will be willing to do the job under current parameters, or are they willing to forego consumption, which is exactly what is playing out. Of course, the problem of insufficient supply of truck drivers can also be solved by reducing demand for truck drivers, by using automation/trains/reducing regulations/etc. The reducing regulations one is cheapest, of course.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      > The root problem is are consumers willing to pay extra for the end goods so that enough truckers will be willing to do the job under current parameters, there's no evidence whatsoever that any price increases seen in the last 20 months are attributable to paying truckers any more, nor is there much evidence that consumption is being foregone. so, i am not really sure what your point is or how this can be the "root problem".
  - UncleEntity 5y ago
    > Long-haul truckers appear to be independent contractors with zero market power relative to trucking firms. Some are, most drive for a company. Its not like they are forcing them to go out and spend $140,000+ on a truck to make less than minimum wage as TFA asserts but people are choosing to buy (or lease) a truck on their own volition. Maybe they make money, maybe they lose money, either way it’s what they chose to do and business is hard.
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  The oil companies could reduce their record profits a bit to help the country.
  - splitstud 5y ago
bicx 5y ago
Despite capitalism being lauded by many, I don't think a lot of people can actually stomach the harsh realities of how capitalism is expected to work. If reality allowed for seamless rebalancing of labor during times of shifting supply and demand, these truckers could simply move on to a better career until shipping companies realize they need to increase their compensation and benefits. That would be ideal capitalism. However, the reality is that around 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (probably much higher for truckers), and taking the time and effort to find a better industry and seek training is extremely difficult. It could hurt their families and send them into a predatory debt cycle.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  It's also worth noting that even Adam Smith himself didn't seem to think that capitalism could work well without strong and effective labor unions. It's, at best, unwise to oppose workers banding together to protect their interest, and at the same time turn a blind eye to business owners colluding. Which they will always be able to do. At the very least, in the US their right to fund think tanks that run anti labor union publicity campaigns is constitutionally protected.
- sdb0 5y ago
- AtlasBarfed 5y ago
  Your ideal capitalism would also imply that labor gets rapidly rewarded for increases in productivity, efficiency, output, and restricted supply/excess demand for their skills. Everything about America is quite the opposite. It is cartel suppression of rewarding labor, and has been for centuries now. Control of labor "costs" and hostile labor relations is openly discussed in business schools and the management community for just as long. All you have to do is watch a CEO immediately demand increased compensation for some arbitrary increase in the stock price, perhaps due to overall all boats rising, fortuitous market conditions, etc. But if you're a worker bee that saves the company a million dollars a year, or bring in 10 million dollars of sales by improving the product, what do you get? A plaque. You can also tell with the classic news story: "there's not enough available people for X job". This is literally first day of microeconomics: well, increase wages (prices) in order to spur supply increase to meet demand. Which is heresy in oligarchical and management circles, the same "laissez faire" "economics is god-science" cult. The theory and academics of economics have truths and pursue the same goals of any field of study. But the sad fact is that economics as an institution of civilization is not, it exists to server the oligarch/management class, provide the tools of their continued and expanded influence, and suppress the people. It professorships are funded and sponsored by the rich and powerful. Think tanks, elite positions in central banks and regulatory agencies, and the like implicitly and explicitly reward those "thought leaders" that serve the rich and powerful, and exert a negative career influence on economists that do not. This is not just squabbling over the share of the pie. The institution of economics is complicit in the decades-long denialism of impending environmental dangers that will threaten us collectively in the coming decades.
dehrmann 5y ago
It worked like it did for airlines: lower prices and generally worse service unless you want to pay for it (and most people don't).
- pdonis 5y ago
  If most people aren't willing to pay more for better service, then the better service is not worth what it would cost and not providing it makes the economy more efficient--resources are freed up to be applied to things that are worth what they cost.
  - BigRedDog1669 5y ago
    But with airlines, the terms of service and what fees tacked on are constantly changing so it seems impossible to know ahead of time that you are actually getting better service with a higher cost. And the pricing that is constantly changing makes it seem like a higher price is because of demand on that flight, not because higher service. It just isn't possible to know what you are getting vs what you are paying unless you do a ton of research or fly all the time.
    - dehrmann 5y ago
      > constantly changing so it seems impossible to know ahead of time that you are actually getting better service with a higher cost The main variables are legroom, food, and bags. First class gives you all of them. Premium economy gets you legroom (and possibly food, but at $12 for a snack box, I don't stress over it). Offerings are pretty consistent across the legacy carriers. Free checked bags haven't been a thing for a long time. The budget carriers like Spirit nickel and dime you for literally everything, but that's their thing. Southwest is weird. Unless you're on a discount carrier, you'll get food and alcohol on all long-haul flights.
      - BigRedDog1669 5y ago
        That's a good assessment on the choices you can pay for. I also think about how likely it is that the carrier will cancel or delay the flight, will it be a mess to get my money back if the flight gets cancelled or changed (even if the policies say it is allowed), and will the wifi work after I pay for it on long flights. Those things aren't covered by paying even more money and don't correlate with paying more for a flight.

verisimi 5y ago

Or decrease fuel duties to decrease the cost of deliveries - surely an obvious answer in inflationary times, as it will decrease costs everywhere.

jeromegv 5y ago
Did you read the article? The issue is cost of labor being too cheap and not being compensated for waiting time which leads to huge turnover rate. How’s reducing fuel duties helping the workers?
- diordiderot 5y ago
  The extra profits from increased consumption will trickle down in the form of new jobs that don't pay a living wage either
lotsofpulp 5y ago
Or people reduce consumption and adjust their expectations as they reduce their above average consumption relative to the rest of their own city, state, country, world’s population.
ekidd 5y ago
While that's certainly an excellent idea, it doesn't directly address any of the serious problems discussed in the article. Long-haul truckers appear to be independent contractors with zero market power relative to trucking firms. They're exempt from minimum wages and benefits, and they're required to lease their trucks from the trucking companies, then pay to maintain them. Under these circumstances, reducing fuel duties might slightly reduce costs to consumers. But it doesn't look like it would help the truckers one bit, because they have no negotiating leverage. Any new money injected into the system would just be extracted by the shipping companies. Or that's my understanding of the article. I'm not saying you're doing this, but I am frankly tired of knee-jerk, simple answers to tricky problems. If someone tells me the answer is always deregulation or lower taxes or whatever, and their advice never changes depending on the situation at hand, I'm increasingly assuming that they're pushing a simplistic, abstract theory. Given the state of the world today, we need to stop repeating slogans and start thinking hard about how to solve the problems we face.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > I'm not saying you're doing this, but I am frankly tired of knee-jerk, simple answers to tricky problems. This one does have a knee jerk simple answer. Increase pay to attract and retain sufficient talent. The root problem is are consumers willing to pay extra for the end goods so that enough truckers will be willing to do the job under current parameters, or are they willing to forego consumption, which is exactly what is playing out. Of course, the problem of insufficient supply of truck drivers can also be solved by reducing demand for truck drivers, by using automation/trains/reducing regulations/etc. The reducing regulations one is cheapest, of course.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > The root problem is are consumers willing to pay extra for the end goods so that enough truckers will be willing to do the job under current parameters, there's no evidence whatsoever that any price increases seen in the last 20 months are attributable to paying truckers any more, nor is there much evidence that consumption is being foregone. so, i am not really sure what your point is or how this can be the "root problem".
- UncleEntity 5y ago
  > Long-haul truckers appear to be independent contractors with zero market power relative to trucking firms. Some are, most drive for a company. Its not like they are forcing them to go out and spend $140,000+ on a truck to make less than minimum wage as TFA asserts but people are choosing to buy (or lease) a truck on their own volition. Maybe they make money, maybe they lose money, either way it’s what they chose to do and business is hard.
JaimeThompson 5y ago
The oil companies could reduce their record profits a bit to help the country.
- splitstud 5y ago

bicx 5y ago

Despite capitalism being lauded by many, I don't think a lot of people can actually stomach the harsh realities of how capitalism is expected to work. If reality allowed for seamless rebalancing of labor during times of shifting supply and demand, these truckers could simply move on to a better career until shipping companies realize they need to increase their compensation and benefits. That would be ideal capitalism. However, the reality is that around 70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (probably much higher for truckers), and taking the time and effort to find a better industry and seek training is extremely difficult. It could hurt their families and send them into a predatory debt cycle.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mumblemumble 5y ago
It's also worth noting that even Adam Smith himself didn't seem to think that capitalism could work well without strong and effective labor unions. It's, at best, unwise to oppose workers banding together to protect their interest, and at the same time turn a blind eye to business owners colluding. Which they will always be able to do. At the very least, in the US their right to fund think tanks that run anti labor union publicity campaigns is constitutionally protected.
sdb0 5y ago
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Your ideal capitalism would also imply that labor gets rapidly rewarded for increases in productivity, efficiency, output, and restricted supply/excess demand for their skills. Everything about America is quite the opposite. It is cartel suppression of rewarding labor, and has been for centuries now. Control of labor "costs" and hostile labor relations is openly discussed in business schools and the management community for just as long. All you have to do is watch a CEO immediately demand increased compensation for some arbitrary increase in the stock price, perhaps due to overall all boats rising, fortuitous market conditions, etc. But if you're a worker bee that saves the company a million dollars a year, or bring in 10 million dollars of sales by improving the product, what do you get? A plaque. You can also tell with the classic news story: "there's not enough available people for X job". This is literally first day of microeconomics: well, increase wages (prices) in order to spur supply increase to meet demand. Which is heresy in oligarchical and management circles, the same "laissez faire" "economics is god-science" cult. The theory and academics of economics have truths and pursue the same goals of any field of study. But the sad fact is that economics as an institution of civilization is not, it exists to server the oligarch/management class, provide the tools of their continued and expanded influence, and suppress the people. It professorships are funded and sponsored by the rich and powerful. Think tanks, elite positions in central banks and regulatory agencies, and the like implicitly and explicitly reward those "thought leaders" that serve the rich and powerful, and exert a negative career influence on economists that do not. This is not just squabbling over the share of the pie. The institution of economics is complicit in the decades-long denialism of impending environmental dangers that will threaten us collectively in the coming decades.

dehrmann 5y ago

It worked like it did for airlines: lower prices and generally worse service unless you want to pay for it (and most people don't).

pdonis 5y ago
If most people aren't willing to pay more for better service, then the better service is not worth what it would cost and not providing it makes the economy more efficient--resources are freed up to be applied to things that are worth what they cost.
- BigRedDog1669 5y ago
  But with airlines, the terms of service and what fees tacked on are constantly changing so it seems impossible to know ahead of time that you are actually getting better service with a higher cost. And the pricing that is constantly changing makes it seem like a higher price is because of demand on that flight, not because higher service. It just isn't possible to know what you are getting vs what you are paying unless you do a ton of research or fly all the time.
  - dehrmann 5y ago
    > constantly changing so it seems impossible to know ahead of time that you are actually getting better service with a higher cost The main variables are legroom, food, and bags. First class gives you all of them. Premium economy gets you legroom (and possibly food, but at $12 for a snack box, I don't stress over it). Offerings are pretty consistent across the legacy carriers. Free checked bags haven't been a thing for a long time. The budget carriers like Spirit nickel and dime you for literally everything, but that's their thing. Southwest is weird. Unless you're on a discount carrier, you'll get food and alcohol on all long-haul flights.
    - BigRedDog1669 5y ago
      That's a good assessment on the choices you can pay for. I also think about how likely it is that the carrier will cancel or delay the flight, will it be a mess to get my money back if the flight gets cancelled or changed (even if the policies say it is allowed), and will the wifi work after I pay for it on long flights. Those things aren't covered by paying even more money and don't correlate with paying more for a flight.