4 ms·

"> drivers leave the industry is basically the same thing as > there's a shortage" No, it's not. It means the drivers are not being paid enough to stay, as t

"> drivers leave the industry is basically the same thing as > there's a shortage" No, it's not. It means the drivers are not being paid enough to stay, as they explicitly say is the reason they're leaving. >If anyone wants to work on this problem with me Sure, here's the solution: pay the drivers more. Problem solved.

jvanderbot 3y ago
> drivers are not being paid enough to stay therefore > drivers leave the industry therefore > there's a shortage ... at the going wage I don't see how we can argue over the problem statement. We can argue over the solutions, of which there are infinite, but at least two: 1. increase wages 2. decrease shittiness of the job via ideas like mine Or why not both? The only dichotomy here is a false one you've introduced.
- LiquidSky 3y ago
  Because there's no problem. There's not "shortage", it's not that there just aren't enough people to be drivers. There are plenty, employers just don't want to pay enough to attract them. >We can argue over the solutions No, we can't, because there's no solution needed to this non-problem artificially created by employers unwilling to pay enough to attract and retain employees. Your ideas aren't needed except by the employers trying to perpetuate their false self-made "shortage", all to avoid just paying employees more. The only actual problem is uncritically accepting the narrative of the employers as you are doing here.
  - jvanderbot 3y ago
    > There's not "shortage", it's not that there just aren't enough people to be drivers. There are plenty, employers just don't want to pay enough to attract them. OK, well, let's not mince definitions. For the purposes of my thought process, a shortage is defined as "Number of people we want to do a job" minus "Number of people who do that job". The semantic difference between that and what you said is so small as to be negligible to me and doesn't preclude "increase wages" as a solution. I think that's fine for you to have a preferred solution or even a different preferred definition.
    - LiquidSky 3y ago
      No, you're just wrong. You're carrying water for the employers who want to squeeze their employees. Again, there is no actual problem here, just an artificial one created by employers unwilling to pay their workers and crying about it. Don't buy into it.
      - medvezhenok 3y ago
        It's not about employers in this case. If we think being a truck driver is an important job we can subsidize truck drivers federally, via taxes. At the end of the day, society (in the form of government regulation) gets to decide what is and isn't an important job (i.e. government subsidies), and we the people can certainly put our thumb on the scale. People collectively decided truck drivers were overpaid [relatively] in the 1970s, hence the deregulation of the trucking industry which led to a collapse in trucker's salaries. No use blaming employers here - it was decided by the government (representing the people of the U.S.)
        randomdata 3y ago
        > It's not about employers in this case. In this case it is. The discussion is about how employers have a dream that isn't being realized. They are metaphorical 10 year old-boys drooling over the idea of owning a Ferrari, without the capability to actually buy one. The only "problem" is that their dream is remaining a dream. Which isn't actually a problem. Dreams aren't supposed to be realized. They are meant to be just dreams. Who gives a shit if a 10 year old can't own a Ferrari? And that is what the parent is pointing out – that the '10 year-old cries' of business are meaningless. Let them dream, but it ends there. If people of the U.S. want to give truckers more money, they are free to do so, but that is well beyond the topic at hand.
      - jvanderbot 3y ago
        I completely understand and agree with your point. Just wanted to be clear. Not disagreeing at all.
      - unethical_ban 3y ago

jvanderbot 3y ago

> drivers are not being paid enough to stay therefore > drivers leave the industry therefore > there's a shortage ... at the going wage I don't see how we can argue over the problem statement. We can argue over the solutions, of which there are infinite, but at least two: 1. increase wages 2. decrease shittiness of the job via ideas like mine Or why not both? The only dichotomy here is a false one you've introduced.

LiquidSky 3y ago
Because there's no problem. There's not "shortage", it's not that there just aren't enough people to be drivers. There are plenty, employers just don't want to pay enough to attract them. >We can argue over the solutions No, we can't, because there's no solution needed to this non-problem artificially created by employers unwilling to pay enough to attract and retain employees. Your ideas aren't needed except by the employers trying to perpetuate their false self-made "shortage", all to avoid just paying employees more. The only actual problem is uncritically accepting the narrative of the employers as you are doing here.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  > There's not "shortage", it's not that there just aren't enough people to be drivers. There are plenty, employers just don't want to pay enough to attract them. OK, well, let's not mince definitions. For the purposes of my thought process, a shortage is defined as "Number of people we want to do a job" minus "Number of people who do that job". The semantic difference between that and what you said is so small as to be negligible to me and doesn't preclude "increase wages" as a solution. I think that's fine for you to have a preferred solution or even a different preferred definition.
  - LiquidSky 3y ago
    No, you're just wrong. You're carrying water for the employers who want to squeeze their employees. Again, there is no actual problem here, just an artificial one created by employers unwilling to pay their workers and crying about it. Don't buy into it.
    - medvezhenok 3y ago
      It's not about employers in this case. If we think being a truck driver is an important job we can subsidize truck drivers federally, via taxes. At the end of the day, society (in the form of government regulation) gets to decide what is and isn't an important job (i.e. government subsidies), and we the people can certainly put our thumb on the scale. People collectively decided truck drivers were overpaid [relatively] in the 1970s, hence the deregulation of the trucking industry which led to a collapse in trucker's salaries. No use blaming employers here - it was decided by the government (representing the people of the U.S.)
      - randomdata 3y ago
        > It's not about employers in this case. In this case it is. The discussion is about how employers have a dream that isn't being realized. They are metaphorical 10 year old-boys drooling over the idea of owning a Ferrari, without the capability to actually buy one. The only "problem" is that their dream is remaining a dream. Which isn't actually a problem. Dreams aren't supposed to be realized. They are meant to be just dreams. Who gives a shit if a 10 year old can't own a Ferrari? And that is what the parent is pointing out – that the '10 year-old cries' of business are meaningless. Let them dream, but it ends there. If people of the U.S. want to give truckers more money, they are free to do so, but that is well beyond the topic at hand.
    - jvanderbot 3y ago
      I completely understand and agree with your point. Just wanted to be clear. Not disagreeing at all.
    - unethical_ban 3y ago