[lbarrett]

What a wildly anti-union article.

"Deregulation has worked well. ... Before deregulation ICC-regulated truckers paid unionized workers about 50 percent more than comparable workers in other industries."

I understand that cheaper trucking is helpful for some industries, but cutting workers' income is definitely a negative, not a positive.

[zeveb]

> I understand that cheaper trucking is helpful for some industries, but cutting workers' income is definitely a negative, not a positive.

It's negative for them, and positive for everyone who buys something shipped by truck — which is to say, everyone.

The study also notes that truckers are still paid more than comparable workers in other industries.

[rwallace]

First, that assumes the savings mostly go to customers rather than into the pockets of executives and shareholders. Trends over the last few decades suggest otherwise.

Second, it's a negative for truckers and their families but also for everyone who works in any industry that supplies anything truckers buy, directly or indirectly - which is to say, nearly everyone.

[zeveb]

> First, that assumes the savings mostly go to customers rather than into the pockets of executives and shareholders. Trends over the last few decades suggest otherwise.

The price of shipping over the last several decades has fallen, as indicated in that article. Those savings have gone to shippers, not to trucking executives. Meanwhile, given competitive markets, customers of shippers have realised those same savings.

> Second, it's a negative for truckers and their families but also for everyone who works in any industry that supplies anything truckers buy, directly or indirectly

Dubious. Reduced friction tends to make everyone better off.

[rwallace]

And yet, in developed countries, decade after decade GDP on paper keeps going up and at the same time in real terms nearly everyone keeps getting poorer, so something has gone wrong with the assumptions on which this plausible-sounding economic model is based.