[wolverine876]

> Let alone the cost of employing all the union railway workers, maintenance crews, technicians, etc

Nitpicking to make a point: Employing people and paying them well is not just an expense; it has some enormous benefits.

[lotsofpulp]

In the context of a discussion about what method of delivering oil is more efficient, wasting resources on employing people for unnecessary tasks does not have enormous benefits. From a society point of view, if the goal is to deliver oil, then it is a societal loss to do it inefficiently just to pay more people.

If the goal is to pay people, then just pay people, no need to do it in a roundabout way of forcing an inefficiency into the system.

[wolverine876]

> wasting resources on employing people for unnecessary tasks does not have enormous benefits

Agreed, but that assumes perfect knowledge by business owners of what is most efficient.

I think business owners often lean much too far toward seeing labor as a commodity and an expense, to be minimized. Another approach is to see humans as the most powerful parts of the organization, and to invest in and empower them.

I'm speaking in the abstract; of course it's not always the case that more investment in labor is better. But there is a history of it: For example (and this is more a legend than something I have details on), back in the 1980s American auto companies had long treated workers as commodities. Toyota was far more successful by empowering them; famously, any worker could stop the assembly line.

[lupire]

Labor isn't ecologically inefficient. People are alive regardless of if they work.

[bluGill]

Then lets pay everyone well to dig holes in their backyard and fill them in.

Employing people is great gain only if they do something productive. If you can employ less people that is greater gain because those others can do something else useful.

[lupire]

Labor time is a expiring and renewing natural resource. It's OK to use some of it.

[wolverine876]

Great points, this and the other comment.

[londons_explore]

Paying people well is very negative for the environment.

A poorly paid person will have a smaller car, smaller house, use less electricity and gas, and throw away far less trash.

In fact, wealth is very strongly correlated to environmental impact. Sure, rich people might be buying electric cars and recyclable coffee cups, but it nowhere near offsets the bigger house with A/C...