[Refreeze5224]

This is the true problem with AI. It's with who owns it, and what they will inevitably use it for. Whether it can do cool stuff with code or equal a junior developer is irrelevant. What it can do is less important than what it will be used for.

The owning class will use it to reduce payroll costs, which from their perspective is a cost center and always will be. If you're not an owner, then you have no control over the direction or use of AI. You are doomed to have your life disrupted and changed by it, with no input whatsoever. To quote the article, your six shillings a day can become six shillings a week, and you are left to just deal with it however you can. You are "free" to go find some other six shilling a week job. If you can.

And if you think, "Oh, every technology is like this, it's always been this way", you are right. You have always been at the whims of the owning class, and barring a change towards economic democracy, where average people regain control over their lives, it likely always will be.

[Cthulhu_]

> The owning class will use it to reduce payroll costs

Things are cyclic, nothing new; the previous big scare was (is?) outsourcing, where for the same price as one developer in western / northern Europe or SF you can hire five from eastern Europe or India. But that hasn't affected employability of the one developer, as far as I'm aware.

I'm not even thinking of skill level, I'm sure that's comparable (but honestly I don't know / care enough), but both outsourcing and AI require the same things - requirements. I've grown up in this country (the Netherlands) and automatically have intrinsic knowledge of e.g. government, taxes, the energy sector, transportation, etc, so much that I'm not even consciously aware of a lot of things I know. If you spend a LOT of time and effort, you could - eventually - break that down into requirements and work orders or whatever that someone else could process. But it's much more efficient to do it yourself or just hire someone from around here.

[ge96]

> hasn't affected employability of the one developer

I wonder, combo that r&d rule, general economics, saturation in the field

The norm for new grads seems to be "apply at least 2000 times, get 1 job"

[tangjurine]

the one developer

one dev to rule them all, and in darkness bind them

sounds like a 10x dev to me

[bevr1337]

> Things are cyclic, nothing new

Must be a convenient worldview

[RainyDayTmrw]

I know of two major examples - one personal and one word-of-mouth - where a major US company successfully took their Covid era remote work knowledge, applied it to outsourcing, and successfully replaced most of their US onshore developers with offshore.

[worik]

> the previous big scare was (is?) outsourcing,

I was replaced by outsourcing

Seriously. Fuck off

[whall6]

The owning class is different today than it was in Ned’s time.

Who owns MSFT? You, probably, through your 401k.

Nobody is stopping you from creating a coalition of similarly minded shareholders and effecting change.

Unless you stuff your cash under your mattress, you are the owning class.

[like_any_other]

> Who owns MSFT? You, probably, through your 401k.

All or nothing fallacy. People have VASTLY different degrees of ownership, and this is reflected in their degree of control.

> Nobody is stopping you from creating a coalition of similarly minded shareholders

Such coalitions already exist. They have names like BlackRock, Vanguard, and Fidelity Investments [1]. Good luck competing with them. Especially if you abdicate your role in democracy, don't agitate for legal change, and restrict yourself to only market-based means of change (not BlackRock and ilk though - they use every lever available to them, they don't handicap themselves).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_asset_management_firms

[whall6]

This isn’t a false dichotomy because I’m not even representing two separate choices.

I get that you alone have probably an insignificant amount of control, but forming a coalition would allow you to make change.

I’m aware that there are asset managers. Whose assets do you think they’re managing? Yours!

Do you own VOO? Awesome, that’s why Vanguard owns 10% of almost every large cap company.

Take control of those shares and go make change.

Look up John Chevedden. He owns a minimal amount of shares in companies where he causes huge changes. They call him the “corporate gadfly” [1]

Don’t be lured into thinking that you have to invest your money into a predesigned portfolio because it maximizes returns. If you care about control then maximize control. You already have the power!

[1] https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-23-19/s72319-6733874-207512....

[worik]

> Nobody is stopping you from creating a coalition of similarly minded shareholders

Sweet lies.

[blooalien]

This is by far my biggest concern about "A.I." and "smart" robots... Not the technology itself, but what the "ruling class" intend to do with it / how they intend to use it. Their primary concern is not "worker productivity" these days. It's "How can I replace the maximum number of workers (ideally all of them) so that I can keep most / all of the profits / benefits for myself (and the shareholders)?" It's always been about profit, but they now finally see a potential to entirely rid themselves of "those pesky poors" and their annoying paychecks once and for all.

[WalterBright]

> The owning class will use it to reduce payroll costs

Of course. That's been going on since the invention of the plow. That's why today we can do more interesting things than turn over the earth with a pointy stick all day every day.

> economic democracy, where average people regain control over their lives

History shows us that this inevitably means people lose all control over their lives, because the state will make your decisions for you and assign you your job.

For example, let's say the color of cars produce by car companies is determined by democracy. 59% vote for the cars to be green. And if you want a red car? Too bad. What if you want a 4 seat car? No dice, 53% voted for 2 seaters to be made. What if you didn't want a car stereo? You're stuck paying for it anyway, as 73% voted for it.

[asmxyz]

There are _other options_!

You're argument is that the only two alternatives are that the ruling class and owning class be separate groups of people, or the same group of people. And either way the labor class if F'ed. You're right that having the ruling class and the owning class being the _same people_ is terrible. That's what we're living in right now!

But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if Amazon was owned by the people who work at Amazon? Instead of Bezos?

[WalterBright]

The labor class is free to form collectives and cooperatives. There's no law against it.

Bezos started Amazon with $300,000. I'm sure it wouldn't take too long for workers to raise that kind of money, after all, $300,000 to buy a house is considered cheap.

On the other hand, the history of businesses being confiscated and handed over to the workers has not been a successful one.

[whatshisface]

But startups are worker-owned, insofar as the founders are able to profit from it.

[WalterBright]

Some startups are worker-owned through stock grants, but those grants are rarely evenly distributed. The founders hold the majority as long as they can.

It is a good practice for companies to include stock as part of the pay package. It encourages alignment of the company with the employees. Very, very successful companies follow this model, such as Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Google, etc.

[whatshisface]

It seems to indicate that if Amazon was employee-owned today, the first thing they would vote to do is convert future hires into non-owners, because that's what the founders did when it was actually employee-owned.

[mm263]

$600,000 after inflation

[azemetre]

The labor class should also advocate for workplace democracy to fight back.

Workers should be able to vote for their bosses.

Democratic societies are good for human flourishing. The only way to flourish is to have a thriving middle class.

Workplace democracy would be a boon for labor.

[Aurornis]

> But what about the labor class being the owning class? What if Amazon was owned by the people who work at Amazon? Instead of Bezos?

I wonder how many people who repeat things like this know that Bezos owns less than 10% of Amazon. About 2/3rds of Amazon is owned by institutional investors, much of which is in turn owned by individuals in their 401ks and other retirement plans. So "the people" own more of Amazon than Jeff Bezos already.

If you're implying that the government should confiscate Jeff Bezos' personal ownership stake in the business he created and redistribute it to other people, that's a very different topic. It's in the realm of fantasy, not reality, so I don't consider it very interesting. At minimum, it should be noted that if the government gets into the business of confiscating shares from people, the value of those shares will plummet as investors move their money into safer investments, so it wouldn't be a simple numerical wealth transfer from Bezos to others.

Regardless, there's nothing stopping people from getting together and starting an employee-owned collective company that enters the market. They can compete in the market and try to hire away talent from the other corporations.

[asmxyz]

Yes, Bezos only owns ~10%, but I think it's fair to say that, of Amazon employees and owners, he has more than 10% of the power within Amazon.

If warehouse workers want better conditions they have to solve a national coordination problem without getting crushed. If Bezos wants their working conditions to be more efficient he has to write a memo.

Edit: to connect this back to ownership. This disparity is directly responsible for determining whether profits pay fair wages or got to Bezos and the other owners.

[worik]

Given the low pay and harsh conditions of the people who create the wealth of Amazon, I do not see confiscating it from the current owners as a Bad Thing

There are probably better means to achieve better ends, but the status quo is very fucking rotten

[egypturnash]

"2/3 of Amazon is owned by institutional investors" is a long-ass way from "Amazon is owned by the people who work at Amazon".

[kevincox]

The problem isn't reducing payroll costs and increased productivity, it is the consolidation of wealth.

If we can do twice as much with half of the labour people should work 20h weeks, not be unable to afford a home.

[schmidtleonard]

I have a whole list of things I'd like from my car that the market does not provide because it is more profitable not to. Why do I get the feeling that instead of seeing this as a horror story you would scold me for unreasonable expectations, even though it is the identical mirror form of the horror story you just told?

[WalterBright]

Mass production reduces costs by standardizing things. But still, car companies offer a wide range of options if you're willing to wait for your order. If Ford doesn't provide what you want, there's GM, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. There's no shortage of variety.

There's also a small cottage industry of people who will make fully custom cars for you. They're pretty expensive, though, as they don't benefit from economies of scale.

[stego-tech]

Because Mr. Bright has a long, storied comment history of neolibertarian fantasies being wielded as a cudgel against anyone who dares envision a future that does not align with his own.

Speaking from experience with them in another thread. Your best bet is to ignore the bait and move on to more fruitful discussions.

[WalterBright]

I merely point out that economic history shows that economic freedom works better than any other system.

Besides, I enjoy debate, like other people enjoy playing football. If you don't, why are you here?

[fragmede]

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely as you've accomplished far more than I have, you aren't here for debate. Your viewpoint is stuck in the cold war mentality where Soviet communism was a failure (it did, but that doesn't mean that everything they touched was bad) and America and its brand of Free Market capitalism is perfect (it isn't) and responding to your comments is like talking to a brick wall for all the "debate" that actually occurs. Other long time posters here know better than to engage, but hey, you caught me waiting on Claude.

[dh2022]

Having lived through communism I can say the only good things were equality of men and women (in my communist country there were just as many women doctors, engineers, managers, accountants as men) and equality between people (students from Africa were very much welcomed). Everything else though was miserable: our free healthcare, our free cold apartments that had electricity 2 hours a day, our free education, our cheap on paper but non-existent food and medicaments.

[WalterBright]

All attempts at communism failed. Did you know that there have historically been 20,000 communes founded in the US? I wonder what happened to them!

I never said American free markets were perfect. They certainly aren't. But they are very successful.

> responding to your comments is like talking to a brick wall

I could say the same of the people I respond to! I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. The average stay at a commune is about 2 years, after which the members leave, cured of the notion that communism is better. I encourage you to join one.

[derektank]

My take would be to scold you to start your own company that provides the features you want from your car if it's not already being provided by the marketplace

[schmidtleonard]

I'd have more luck petitioning the Central Car Design Committee because

> it is more profitable not to

...and if anyone thinks this is ridiculous, I'd ask them if they are for or against repealing all of our current motor vehicle regulations. If "for," they have admitted to being a hopeless libertarian, and if "against," they have acknowledged that important reasonable features can be incompatible with the profit motive of a free market and it no longer seems so strange that I might have a list which is more of the same.

[jack_h]

> I'd have more luck petitioning the Central Car Design Committee because

Highly doubtful. Command economies have far less variety in what they offer. This isn't theoretical either just look at western cars vs Soviet cars. There's this mistaken belief that if the free market can't provide some good then a command economy could, but the reality is that if a free market can't provide a good then the chance that a command economy could is even more doubtful. Command economies tend to be very bad at allocating resources efficiently as outlined by Hayek in "The Use of Knowledge in Society".

[whatshisface]

That's kind of a silly example, your congressman could write a bill allocating 53% of cars to the two seater lobby and 47% to the four seat lobby.

[WalterBright]

And what if 62% wanted two seaters?

Back in the 70s, the Department of Energy was tasked with allocating gas to the gas stations. A gas station had to apply for an allocation, and the DoE doled out the gas. The DoE doled out gas based on the previous year's usage patterns.

Sounds smart, right?

What happened is that gas consumption varies year to year due to a number of factors, like weather patterns, population changes, etc. The result was massive misallocation by the DoE - Californian had shortages of gas, Florida had gluts. That sort of situation has never happened before.

All that nonsense disappeared literally overnight when Reagan repealed all gas price and allocation controls with his very first Executive Order. I remember than wonderful day very well - at last I could drive right up to the pump and get gas, rather than wait in line. The gas lines never returned.

What you're suggesting is called "central economic planning". It is constantly tried again and again, and it never ever works. (The failures of it are always classified as "unintended side effects", though they are entirely predictable.)

[ta1243]

> I remember than wonderful day very well - at last I could drive right up to the pump and get gas, rather than wait in line. The gas lines never returned.

Not in the UK, due to a fragile supply chain.

https://news.sky.com/story/supply-crisis-catastrophic-panic-...

We saw it when the Evergiven closed the Suez. We see it whenever irational consumer behaviour caused unpredicable behaviour.

The Randian world you are so enamoured with is one of fragility, because buffers and margins reduces profit.

Or are those "unintended side effects"?

[AnIrishDuck]

There were ... many other factors involved in the gas shortages of the 70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_oil_crisis

I don't think the history here is as neat as you have laid out. To be clear: this is not a defense of central planning.

[WalterBright]

I lived through the gas shortages. I remember the day the gas lines ended. They never returned in the 45 years since, despite all sorts of wars and global crises and exploding oil refineries and Hooties shooting at tankers. All gone literally overnight with the stroke of Reagan's pen.

The gas shortages never existed before Nixon imposed price and allocation controls on gas, either.

(Except during WW2, where gas shortages were caused by gas rationing.)

[AnIrishDuck]

Well first, we have this:

> The Jimmy Carter administration began a phased deregulation of oil prices on April 5, 1979, when the average price of crude oil was US$15.85 per barrel ($100/m3).

So, the process wasn't really an instant wave of a wand, or stroke of a pen. We also have this:

> Starting with the Iranian revolution, the price of crude oil rose to $39.50 per barrel ($248/m3) over the next 12 months (its all-time highest real price until March 3, 2008).[11] Deregulating domestic oil price controls allowed U.S. oil output to rise sharply from the large Prudhoe Bay fields, while oil imports fell sharply.

We also have silliness like this:

> Due to memories of the oil shortage in 1973, motorists soon began panic buying, and long lines appeared at gas stations, as they had six years earlier.[13] The average vehicle of the time consumed between two and three liters (about 0.5–0.8 gallons) of gasoline an hour while idling, and it was estimated that Americans wasted up to 150,000 barrels (24,000 m3) of oil per day idling their engines in the lines at gas stations.

So we have counterfactuals: if there was no Iranian revolution, would the effects of Carter's gradual deregulation have been felt sooner? If there was no 1973 oil shortage, would the reduction in waste have made a difference? What effect did people simply believing that the crisis was over have?

I don't propose answers to these questions; they are, in my opinion, unknowable.

I suggest that economic narratives such as the one you propose do not capture the entire picture. You had downward pressure on prices due to deregulation and expanding supply, and upwards pressure due to geopolitics and waste.

These processes do not resolve instantly, they take time to play out. I suggest caution when attempting to derive cause and effect from single events in complex systems.

[whatshisface]

Doesn't every nationwide firm engage in central economic planning?

[dh2022]

Yes and no. A large national firm like Starbucks has a national annual plan. However, this national plan is made up of a lot of little regional plans which are then combined together. This national plan is then executed. Execution relative to plan is assessed every quarter; and every quarter the plans (both national and regional) are adjusted. This assessment and these adjustments are done at both national level and also at regional level.

[immibis]

Were the Soviet Union plans not also made of the plans of individual regions? (did you ever wonder what the Soviet Union was a Union of?)

[WalterBright]

Yup. But they have competitors!

[whatshisface]

It sounds like the issue is competitors or the absence thereof more so than central allocation based on market forecasts being possible or impossible.

[brooke2k]

I feel this is a slightly disingenuous argument - mismanagement and poor planning can happen in both the public and private sectors. The US healthcare system is just one fantastic example of the private sector absolutely failing to deliver even a bare minimum standard of service. Gas lines are one thing - waiting fifteen hours in the emergency room to be seen, only to be charged thousands of dollars for some tylenol and a pat on the head is another.

[WalterBright]

> mismanagement and poor planning can happen in both the public and private sectors

Absolutely correct. But public regulation is quite resistant to course correction. Private companies have to face competitors and adapt or fail.

> The US healthcare system is just one fantastic example of the private sector absolutely failing to deliver even a bare minimum standard of service

The US healthcare system is massively regulated and interfered with by the law and things like people are forced to buy Obamacare and forced to contribute to Medicare and Medicare massively distorts market forces.

Healthcare in the US was affordable before the government got involved.

[brooke2k]

Public regulation also course-corrects, it just does so through democracy rather than competition.

I would argue that democracy is a superior method in most instances, because its motives are driven by the motives of the population as a whole, whereas capitalist competition is ultimately driven by exactly one thing: profit for the capital owners.

Where we agree I think is in the assertion that United States government tends to run things very poorly. In my opinion, however, this is not because central planning is inherently bad, but because our democracy is very weak, and we allow politicians to be controlled by corporate interests rather than the interests of the people that they represent.

EDIT: Oh, and for the record I disagree with the take that the US healthcare system is bad because it has too much regulation - but that's an entirely separate discussion that I don't think is worth going into.

[ungreased0675]

The US healthcare system is pretty far from privately run. It’s more an example of regulatory capture and incumbents freezing out new entrants via extensive government regulations.

[justinrubek]

This person is praising Reagan in terms of economics - I wouldn't even call it slightly disingenuous; it is entirely disingenuous. Walter commonly has absurd takes on this site; I wouldn't fight too hard in conversation.

[brendoelfrendo]

This happens anyway, lol. Go to a car lot and you will see the majority of cars available are black, white, silver, and maybe red. Your car will have a stereo. Your car will probably have 4 seats, not 2. Dealers stock the most common configurations and, maybe this is not your experience, but my experience is that they will twist themselves into knots to avoid helping customers make custom orders for exactly what they want, even though the manufacturer has a fancy configurator page where you can do exactly that.

[WalterBright]

I've never had trouble ordering what I wanted from the options list. That usually means needing to pay more, though.

If you want custom leather seats, you can drive your car off the lot into one of many shops that offer such services, or other customizations. Me, I drove to the stereo shop to put a better stereo in (back when the factory ones were terrible).

There are many reality shows on TV featuring shops what will custom build a car to your specifications.

[gnulinux996]

> Of course. That's been going on since the invention of the plow. That's why today we can do more interesting things than turn over the earth with a pointy stick all day every day.

Are you suggesting that suppression of wages is what gave us "more interesting things" to do?

> History shows us that this inevitably means people lose all control over their lives, because the state will make your decisions for you and assign you your job.

How is this different from the "free market" assigning me a job?

> For example, let's say the color of cars produce by car companies is determined by democracy. 59% vote for the cars to be green. And if you want a red car? Too bad. What if you want a 4 seat car? No dice, 53% voted for 2 seaters to be made. What if you didn't want a car stereo? You're stuck paying for it anyway, as 73% voted for it.

Concessions are the price to pay for living in a civilized society.

[const_cast]

It's kind of a meme at this point that any kind of economic control for laborers = communism. That's not just a jump you're allowed to make, sorry. There are a plethora of nations outside the US which have stronger protections for labor, and they're doing quite well. It's not 1965 anymore, we have to start making real big boy arguments.

[dontlaugh]

This was the Luddites’ position. Organised labour should one again take up this principled position.

Join a trade union!

[WalterBright]

Do you really want a return to the days when "women's work" was spending every free moment spinning and weaving cloth by hand? When cloth was so valuable there was a profession called "rag pickers"? Where new clothes were rare, hand me downs were the usual, and people wore clothes until they disintegrated? And poor people made clothes out of flour sacks?

[lucas_membrane]

Those days were after the rich had commenced urbanization by driving the agrarian workers off the land and encouraging them to find work at dismal wages in the city, made it a crime to be a vagrant, and funded charities that collaborated with judges to force the poor into workhouses where they could enjoy abuse, degradation and misery from cradle to early grave.

[nancyminusone]

Sure would be nice to make clothes from flour sacks again, but alas; today's sacks are made of polypropylene.

[dontlaugh]

That’s not what the Luddites wanted. They praised the technology itself and recognised it would save a lot of time. But they also recognised that they the workers wouldn’t reap any of those benefits, they’d just lose their jobs.

Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases? If so, you are incredibly naive.

[WalterBright]

The workers did reap the benefits. The Law of Supply and Demand ensures it. 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs.

When wages are raised by the government, job losses happen. 16,000 to 36,000 people lost their jobs when California raised the minimum wage for fast food workers.

> Do you really think capitalists would choose to shorten the working day with no loss of pay as productivity increases?

During WW2, production needed to increase, so hours were increased to 60 hour weeks. The labor force, very patriotic, was all for this. Production increased for a few weeks, and then fell below what was produced in a 40 hour week. Companies wanting to maximize profits are aware of this effect.

Also, if you track employee total compensation (not just wages) against productivity increases, the two lines form the same curve. The reason for this is the Law of Supply and Demand pushes those two lines together. The more productive a worker is, the more they get paid, as such workers are more in demand.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> The workers did reap the benefits. The Law of Supply and Demand ensures it. 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs.

Minimum wage is one indicator of critically substandard living. Here is a small sampling of some others:

    well over minimum wage + below the poverty line
    no discernible exits off path to unhoused retirement
    current, recurring or impending homelessness
    food insecurity and recurring hunger
    medically triggered impoverishment
    only possible caregiver for loved one with medical issues

[schmidtleonard]

> if you track employee total compensation (not just wages) against productivity increases, the two lines form the same curve

If you count inflation in medical and housing costs as an increase in wages, the "wedge" disappears, yes -- but why would you do that for any other purpose than making the wedge disappear?

No, it's very telling that labor saving devices, which have squished the largest industry into economic insignificance many times over, have not resulted in the ability for normal people to work less. Clearly, the benefits have gone elsewhere. "The benefits went into technology! Think of the iPhones!" The median financed smartphone is 1/50th the cost of median rent, try again.

[daedrdev]

employers pay for the massively increased medical costs directly though? Its not hard to see that when medical costs increase by 6-10% they would hesitate to increase wages

[immibis]

> 1.1% of the US labor force works at minimum wage jobs.

Far too high. Abject failure. The US's minimum wage is approximately the wage where you could work 24/7 and break even. Anyone working at that wage is in a very bad situation or someone else is paying all their bills.

[specialist]

Now include profit (surplus) in your analysis.

Wage grow has not kept pace with corporate profitability. Why?

[WalterBright]

Because the correct comparison would be with total compensation, of which wages are only a portion.

Total compensation is the costs to an employer to hire some one. It includes:

1. contributions to retirement plans

2. so-called "employer paid" social security contributions

3. sick and paid vacation days

4. employer paid health insurance

5. stock plans

6. 401k plans

7. other payroll taxes

Last time I checked, these often added 40% or more over the takehome pay.

Also, the pay is based on the value the employee as an individual provides, not the value the company as a whole created. Just like the compensation for pro football players varies in a single team.

[gamblor956]

Also, if you track employee total compensation (not just wages) against productivity increases, the two lines form the same curve.

This hasn't been true for at least two decades. Employee compensation severely lags productivity increases, and the capital class captures the entirety of the benefit of that lag.

The more productive a worker is, the more they get paid, as such workers are more in demand.

No. If that were true CEOs and VCs would get paid pennies, and most software programmers would get paid close to minimum wage today (programs are slower and buggier than they were 20 years ago despite having 100x or more increase in hardware resources and offering the same or reduced functionality).

[dontlaugh]

Whenever I see you post on HN I’m reminded about “don’t meet your heroes”. You are so politically naive and indoctrinated for someone so smart.

[WalterBright]

You might be interested to know that political discussions are not allowed in the D forums (or any non-programming topics). We also don't discuss politics at the D conferences.

> You are so politically naive and indoctrinated

How can you be sure it's not the other way around? :-)

[Cthulhu_]

Even unions are up against it though. in the Netherlands, there have been multiple strikes from e.g. the train operators; they demand a 10% wage increase, after the train company downsized a lot during the pandemic, but who were then unable to upsize again as traffic resumed and who even now don't have the same amount of travelers as they did in 2020.

But they're not profitable. They've made a loss for five years in a row, requiring government subsidies to stay operating (because them going bankrupt would make big parts of the country grind to a halt). Ticket prices are so high that it's barely cheaper than driving, and as soon as you travel with two or more people it's cheaper to just own a car. (Or even rent one; I traveled to the other side of the country once for a concert, my own car was in the garage. Did the math, it was cheaper and more convenient (door-to-door) to rent a car, pay the surcharge for long distance, pay the €35 in fuel, etc than it was to buy return tickets for three people)

The answer (I think, I'm no economist / politician / etc) isn't unionising and demanding better treatment, because the limits of the capitalist system they operate in have been reached. The answer is to stop trying to make it profitable. Re-privatize it: trains and public transit are a huge and hugely important nationwide economic driver, an essential service that capitalism can't be trusted with because the owners will try and get as much money out of it as possible, the employees get overworked and exploited and will shut the system down (as is their right) out of protest, and the people will have to deal with the consequences.

Just in my small bubble, the train strikes led to people not going to the office, missing events, lunch orders that either had too much stock that had to be discarded or that were cancelled entirely, costing that company thousands in income, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-union. I'm anti-capitalist though.

[dontlaugh]

You’ll often find trade unionists are also anti-capitalist, some are even socialists or communists.

[breakyerself]

Software engineers needs a lot more organization