5 ms·

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 wo

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.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      >>should we not be preferring the side that has the better ethical claim? >They aren't advocating fining for ethical violations, Your statement is a contradiction of GP's statement. Preferring the side with better 'ethical claim' is in effect a redistribution in the form of discount to the more 'ethical' with a fine to the less 'ethical'.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Again, you are conflating the two points. 1) Fines are appraised for damages 2) When there are competing claims, one should favor the side with a stronger ethical foundation These are not equivalent. Just because #1 is true does not mean fines are appraised for ethics violations. They also don't have to be mutually exclusive. Not sure if you're trying to misdirect or just misunderstanding the distinction.
bumby 4y ago
>then in turn the workers also have a monopoly as external workers are unable to replace them. This is exactly why a strike is devastating and the point of the talk about Congress intervening. However, if it goes down like the air traffic controllers in the 1980s, their labor monopoly may be broken while the rail monopoly remains intact. So again it creates an asymmetry in power which is why taxing the employees is wrong-headed. Tax the companies and they will adjust their rates, pay, and dividends. Tax the employees under a monopolistic employment, all you'll do is make the pay absorb the externalities. It becomes just one more way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Lets imagine what you say is true. The workers are under "monopolistic employment" asymmetrically and any tax is absorbed by the worker (thus their employment is inelastic with respect to wage). Theorize to me what their wages will go down to if the railroads are the unethical and greedy barons which they no doubt may be. >way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor. The strike would socialize the risk of employees/rail companies at the expense of the public who on average are far closer to the poverty line than the median rail worker.
  - bumby 4y ago
    >Theorize to me what their wages will go down to If the companies are backstopped by the govt prohibiting a strike, they will go down to the absolute lowest level tolerable, until people retire and nobody is willing to take on that job. Likely, we'd see what happens in other industries that create a bimodal tiered system, where the grandfathered employees are still paid well while the newer tier are paid a fraction. Or, wages will stagnate until the equivalent occurs. Again, taxing the companies will make sure incentives are more aligned between workers, shareholders, and the public. The problem with one-sided approaches is that it's very easy to levy a fine that someone else has to pay. The public and the shareholders can favor an ever-rising tax as long as long only the employees are burdened with it. Taxing the company will ensure that everyone is incentivized to find a reasonable taxation level. Theorize the govt owns land that has the sole unobtanium mine that the fulfills some public necessity. I have the only equipment that can process the ore. You have the only skillset to operate it. Overtime, my contract terms get to a point that you feel is unreasonable. But the govt says you can't walk away because the public needs their unobtanium. Your solution is that the government tax you for the privilege to continue to mine - which they've also said you can't walk away from. Meanwhile, I pay no penalty to continue to press you for less favorable contract terms so that I can make ever increasing profits. Does that sound like a reasonable arrangement or is it marching towards a Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas scenario? By taxing me instead, it forces me to find the right level of salary to you, rates to the public, and profits for myself. Everybody has skin in the game, unlike when your scenario that gives you an ultimatum you can't walk away from.

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.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >>should we not be preferring the side that has the better ethical claim? >They aren't advocating fining for ethical violations, Your statement is a contradiction of GP's statement. Preferring the side with better 'ethical claim' is in effect a redistribution in the form of discount to the more 'ethical' with a fine to the less 'ethical'.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Again, you are conflating the two points. 1) Fines are appraised for damages 2) When there are competing claims, one should favor the side with a stronger ethical foundation These are not equivalent. Just because #1 is true does not mean fines are appraised for ethics violations. They also don't have to be mutually exclusive. Not sure if you're trying to misdirect or just misunderstanding the distinction.

bumby 4y ago

>then in turn the workers also have a monopoly as external workers are unable to replace them. This is exactly why a strike is devastating and the point of the talk about Congress intervening. However, if it goes down like the air traffic controllers in the 1980s, their labor monopoly may be broken while the rail monopoly remains intact. So again it creates an asymmetry in power which is why taxing the employees is wrong-headed. Tax the companies and they will adjust their rates, pay, and dividends. Tax the employees under a monopolistic employment, all you'll do is make the pay absorb the externalities. It becomes just one more way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor.

notch656a 4y ago
Lets imagine what you say is true. The workers are under "monopolistic employment" asymmetrically and any tax is absorbed by the worker (thus their employment is inelastic with respect to wage). Theorize to me what their wages will go down to if the railroads are the unethical and greedy barons which they no doubt may be. >way of socializing the risk of shareholders at the expense of labor. The strike would socialize the risk of employees/rail companies at the expense of the public who on average are far closer to the poverty line than the median rail worker.
- bumby 4y ago
  >Theorize to me what their wages will go down to If the companies are backstopped by the govt prohibiting a strike, they will go down to the absolute lowest level tolerable, until people retire and nobody is willing to take on that job. Likely, we'd see what happens in other industries that create a bimodal tiered system, where the grandfathered employees are still paid well while the newer tier are paid a fraction. Or, wages will stagnate until the equivalent occurs. Again, taxing the companies will make sure incentives are more aligned between workers, shareholders, and the public. The problem with one-sided approaches is that it's very easy to levy a fine that someone else has to pay. The public and the shareholders can favor an ever-rising tax as long as long only the employees are burdened with it. Taxing the company will ensure that everyone is incentivized to find a reasonable taxation level. Theorize the govt owns land that has the sole unobtanium mine that the fulfills some public necessity. I have the only equipment that can process the ore. You have the only skillset to operate it. Overtime, my contract terms get to a point that you feel is unreasonable. But the govt says you can't walk away because the public needs their unobtanium. Your solution is that the government tax you for the privilege to continue to mine - which they've also said you can't walk away from. Meanwhile, I pay no penalty to continue to press you for less favorable contract terms so that I can make ever increasing profits. Does that sound like a reasonable arrangement or is it marching towards a Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas scenario? By taxing me instead, it forces me to find the right level of salary to you, rates to the public, and profits for myself. Everybody has skin in the game, unlike when your scenario that gives you an ultimatum you can't walk away from.