3 ms·

>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 le

by 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.

notch656a 4y ago
How does 130k in comp compare to a "tolerable" compensation? Do you anticipate someone earning above 130k USD is representative of the general public of Americans who would be punished for the railroad strikes? As a matter of imperfect pragmatism I would support a bill that equally collects from the employees and employer as it would still be some way of extracting rent from land provided freely by public for a service they were cut off from. >Your solution is that the government tax you for the privilege to continue to mine No my solution isn't to tax for the privelege to mine, it's to tax for damages for loss of use of public lands that were only given up conditionally so they could be used productively by employees and employers of the railroad.
- bumby 4y ago
  1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at. 2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t have enough information to fully gauge their fringe benefits, but it’s not uncommon for them to total as much as 50% of total compensation. Additionally, rail engineers are often on call 24/7. So is, say, $75k in salary luxurious given no sick days, 24/7 on call, physically demanding job, and lots of travel, for what the country is saying is a critical role? It doesn’t seem so to me. That’s in todays dollars that will be eroded in the future if the companies have their druthers. It doesn’t seem like the great deal you’re painting it as when ignoring the total picture. 3) again, the land easements are to the company, not the employee. So it doesn’t follow that you want to tax the employee for a right given to the employer. It’s such odd logic that it comes across as a trolling effort
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at. Yes. And you forecast it will be lower in the scenario you proposed of "monopolistic employment." But it is not lower, which logically concludes there is not the condition of monopolistic employment you claim. >2)2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t have enough information to fully gauge their fringe benefits, but it’s not uncommon for them to total as much as 50% of total compensation. Additionally, rail engineers are often on call 24/7. So is, say, $75k in salary luxurious given no sick days, 24/7 on call, physically demanding job, and lots of travel, for what the country is saying is a critical role? It doesn’t seem so to me. That’s in todays dollars that will be eroded in the future if the companies have their druthers. It doesn’t seem like the great deal you’re painting it as when ignoring the total picture. Then it makes even less sense the employees should socialize the risks onto the general public, who receive (by median) less than 130k in total compensation. The tax on employee is to compensate for these socialized losses for privatized gains, imposed against use of land given freely by the public. 3> again, the land easements are to the company, not the employee. So it doesn’t follow that you want to tax the employee for a right given to the employer. It’s such odd logic that it comes across as a trolling effort Employees OF THE COMPANY -- the employees in collusion (monopolistic collusion if you are to be believed) to stop operating the railroad on these lands. Who are disproportional beneficiaries of the land, and by your prior statement equally to shoulder of the damages. The damages imposed by the employees are damages against use of the land. Your absurd trolling accusation, and apparent willing disregard that employees are disproportionate beneficiaries of the land, show you are no longer acting in good faith, so at this point I wish you good day and will give you the joyous benefit of whatever name calling you wish to continue in unopposed.
chii 4y ago
i dont understand the proposal to tax the employee. Taxing an activity makes it happen less. If the gov't want fewer railroad workers (or in your hypothetical example, mining equipment operators), they'd tax them like this! there'd be fewer operators as a result, and any shortage of them will cause problems. These operators aren't slaves - they can quit the industry. The gov't would instead tax those employees _less_, in order for them to keep more of their wages, and thus encourage more of them to exist.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Except the premise given by bumbly above was that the employee's labor is inelastic as they are locked into the industry, and thus the labor would shoulder all of the tax without change in supply. Your comment is directly calling bumbly a liar.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Just stop with the hyperbolic statements and strawmanning. It's against HN guidelines.[1] Also, I did not say their labor is inelastic (at least not at the collective level). The employees have a right to strike. However, the govt has said their labor is a necessity for the public good and has reserved the right to regulate it. Therefore, there is not a free market to set the price for labor as long as that regulatory mechanism exists. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by bumby 4y ago

notch656a 4y ago

How does 130k in comp compare to a "tolerable" compensation? Do you anticipate someone earning above 130k USD is representative of the general public of Americans who would be punished for the railroad strikes? As a matter of imperfect pragmatism I would support a bill that equally collects from the employees and employer as it would still be some way of extracting rent from land provided freely by public for a service they were cut off from. >Your solution is that the government tax you for the privilege to continue to mine No my solution isn't to tax for the privelege to mine, it's to tax for damages for loss of use of public lands that were only given up conditionally so they could be used productively by employees and employers of the railroad.

bumby 4y ago
1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at. 2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t have enough information to fully gauge their fringe benefits, but it’s not uncommon for them to total as much as 50% of total compensation. Additionally, rail engineers are often on call 24/7. So is, say, $75k in salary luxurious given no sick days, 24/7 on call, physically demanding job, and lots of travel, for what the country is saying is a critical role? It doesn’t seem so to me. That’s in todays dollars that will be eroded in the future if the companies have their druthers. It doesn’t seem like the great deal you’re painting it as when ignoring the total picture. 3) again, the land easements are to the company, not the employee. So it doesn’t follow that you want to tax the employee for a right given to the employer. It’s such odd logic that it comes across as a trolling effort
- notch656a 4y ago
  >1) you asked for a forecast of where I thought wages would go. The $130k mark is not what I predicted it would remain at. Yes. And you forecast it will be lower in the scenario you proposed of "monopolistic employment." But it is not lower, which logically concludes there is not the condition of monopolistic employment you claim. >2)2) already addressed this once, but that is $130k in total compensation. I don’t have enough information to fully gauge their fringe benefits, but it’s not uncommon for them to total as much as 50% of total compensation. Additionally, rail engineers are often on call 24/7. So is, say, $75k in salary luxurious given no sick days, 24/7 on call, physically demanding job, and lots of travel, for what the country is saying is a critical role? It doesn’t seem so to me. That’s in todays dollars that will be eroded in the future if the companies have their druthers. It doesn’t seem like the great deal you’re painting it as when ignoring the total picture. Then it makes even less sense the employees should socialize the risks onto the general public, who receive (by median) less than 130k in total compensation. The tax on employee is to compensate for these socialized losses for privatized gains, imposed against use of land given freely by the public. 3> again, the land easements are to the company, not the employee. So it doesn’t follow that you want to tax the employee for a right given to the employer. It’s such odd logic that it comes across as a trolling effort Employees OF THE COMPANY -- the employees in collusion (monopolistic collusion if you are to be believed) to stop operating the railroad on these lands. Who are disproportional beneficiaries of the land, and by your prior statement equally to shoulder of the damages. The damages imposed by the employees are damages against use of the land. Your absurd trolling accusation, and apparent willing disregard that employees are disproportionate beneficiaries of the land, show you are no longer acting in good faith, so at this point I wish you good day and will give you the joyous benefit of whatever name calling you wish to continue in unopposed.

chii 4y ago

i dont understand the proposal to tax the employee. Taxing an activity makes it happen less. If the gov't want fewer railroad workers (or in your hypothetical example, mining equipment operators), they'd tax them like this! there'd be fewer operators as a result, and any shortage of them will cause problems. These operators aren't slaves - they can quit the industry. The gov't would instead tax those employees _less_, in order for them to keep more of their wages, and thus encourage more of them to exist.

notch656a 4y ago
Except the premise given by bumbly above was that the employee's labor is inelastic as they are locked into the industry, and thus the labor would shoulder all of the tax without change in supply. Your comment is directly calling bumbly a liar.
- bumby 4y ago
  Just stop with the hyperbolic statements and strawmanning. It's against HN guidelines.[1] Also, I did not say their labor is inelastic (at least not at the collective level). The employees have a right to strike. However, the govt has said their labor is a necessity for the public good and has reserved the right to regulate it. Therefore, there is not a free market to set the price for labor as long as that regulatory mechanism exists. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html