4 ms·

Total comp by class 1 rail employees is $130k a year [0]. I support their right to strike. It should not be impeded in any form. I also support the right for

Total comp by class 1 rail employees is $130k a year [0]. I support their right to strike. It should not be impeded in any form. I also support the right for society to take back all the land they freely gave for use of the railroads, and then to rent it back by imposing a tax against the paycheck of railroad workers equal to whatever gains they made by shutting down freight to the US. [0] https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/ https://raillaborfacts.org/total-compensation/

bumby 4y ago
Note that is "total compensation" and not salary. That means it's factoring in fringe benefits, like health insurance, time off, retirement, relocation benefits, etc. I'm not saying it should be disregarded, just that it's important to note that distinction for comparison's sake. By comparison, there's some sites online touting $400k average total compensation for SV computer scientists. More to your point, why would you tax the employees rather than the company that actually has the land easement? The former seems to absolve the shareholders while the latter would likely affect both the shareholders and the employees.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Labor is neither perfectly elastic nor perfectly in-elastic. Therefore it is fallacious to presume it would absolve the shareholders. Taxes on employment, taxed against the employee, actually get split between the employer and employee as the employer competes on the labor market and is forced to repay some of the tax in the form of elevated pre-tax wages. That is the tax is only nominally only on the employee.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Rail is a near monopoly * (or at least a cartel), so it doesn’t have the same market forces to make that thesis work. There are enormous barriers to entry that prevent much competition, so employees have little market from which to choose. Meaning it shifts the power away from the employee in favor of the employer. * this is one of the reasons Warren Buffet invested in rail a decade or so ago.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      If the workers are so specialized in rail that substitutions from rail to not rail are so poor as to not have an external market as you say, then in turn the workers also have a monopoly as external workers are unable to replace them. If what you say is true I am totally unsympathetic of argumetns against damages being sought from monopolizers who are involved in the shutting down of the rail network for which society gave up its lands.
      - naasking 4y ago
        > If what you say is true I am totally unsympathetic of argumetns against damages being sought from monopolizers who are involved in the shutting down of the rail network for which society gave up its lands. Great, since the shareholders of these companies are also involved in shutting down the rail network since they refuse to give a humane employment contract, you should be equally unsympathetic to their side. Since all else is equal on who should be blamed for shutting down rail or the economic impact this will have, then should we not be preferring the side that has the better ethical claim?
        notch656a 4y ago
        I'm not talking about collecting damages for ethics violations. I'm talking about real damages as a result of shutdowns. If you want to impose additional damages beyond that for ethics, then sure maybe you can argue about who was more/less ethical.
        bumby 4y ago
        I believe you are conflating their point. They aren't advocating fining for ethical violations, but fining on the basis of realized damages. If you think both the company and workers are responsible for those damages, it is unethical to disproportionately fine only one side. If you tax the company, both sides will be affected. The company directly through the fines, but also the workers indirectly as the company pay structure will have to adjust to remain viable. If you only tax the workers, only one side of that equation is affected.

bumby 4y ago

Note that is "total compensation" and not salary. That means it's factoring in fringe benefits, like health insurance, time off, retirement, relocation benefits, etc. I'm not saying it should be disregarded, just that it's important to note that distinction for comparison's sake. By comparison, there's some sites online touting $400k average total compensation for SV computer scientists. More to your point, why would you tax the employees rather than the company that actually has the land easement? The former seems to absolve the shareholders while the latter would likely affect both the shareholders and the employees.

notch656a 4y ago
Labor is neither perfectly elastic nor perfectly in-elastic. Therefore it is fallacious to presume it would absolve the shareholders. Taxes on employment, taxed against the employee, actually get split between the employer and employee as the employer competes on the labor market and is forced to repay some of the tax in the form of elevated pre-tax wages. That is the tax is only nominally only on the employee.
- bumby 4y ago
  Rail is a near monopoly * (or at least a cartel), so it doesn’t have the same market forces to make that thesis work. There are enormous barriers to entry that prevent much competition, so employees have little market from which to choose. Meaning it shifts the power away from the employee in favor of the employer. * this is one of the reasons Warren Buffet invested in rail a decade or so ago.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    If the workers are so specialized in rail that substitutions from rail to not rail are so poor as to not have an external market as you say, then in turn the workers also have a monopoly as external workers are unable to replace them. If what you say is true I am totally unsympathetic of argumetns against damages being sought from monopolizers who are involved in the shutting down of the rail network for which society gave up its lands.
    - naasking 4y ago
      > If what you say is true I am totally unsympathetic of argumetns against damages being sought from monopolizers who are involved in the shutting down of the rail network for which society gave up its lands. Great, since the shareholders of these companies are also involved in shutting down the rail network since they refuse to give a humane employment contract, you should be equally unsympathetic to their side. Since all else is equal on who should be blamed for shutting down rail or the economic impact this will have, then should we not be preferring the side that has the better ethical claim?
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I'm not talking about collecting damages for ethics violations. I'm talking about real damages as a result of shutdowns. If you want to impose additional damages beyond that for ethics, then sure maybe you can argue about who was more/less ethical.
        bumby 4y ago
        I believe you are conflating their point. They aren't advocating fining for ethical violations, but fining on the basis of realized damages. If you think both the company and workers are responsible for those damages, it is unethical to disproportionately fine only one side. If you tax the company, both sides will be affected. The company directly through the fines, but also the workers indirectly as the company pay structure will have to adjust to remain viable. If you only tax the workers, only one side of that equation is affected.