It is not a matter of paying "more" but changing how they pay
Most Truckers are paid by the mile... So if your sitting in traffic no pay (next time your stopped in traffic look around, how many semi's are sitting with you, most of those drivers are doing it for free)
Then there is load and unload time, which for some companies is non-paid, other is a nominal flat rate of like $35 that could take up hours of your day.
Then there is the "hours of service" which many companies require their drivers go "off duty" when they arrive at warehouse, but the warehouse required them to monitor the CB Radio to be called to pull into a dock, so their "sleep" time is taken up waiting to be unloaded, and they do this waiting for free.
Trucking companies need to end the practice of per mile pay, and start paying drivers Per Hour or a Salary (non-exempt) like every other company.
You started down the right road. Much of their pay has to do with how they are paid. There are trucking companies that don't pay drivers to fuel the truck. Do you know how long that takes? It isn't like it is an optional task - that truck won't move without fuel.
I know a driver who spends 2-6 hours waiting to be unloaded. He doesn't get paid for that time but isn't free to leave the truck because when the loading dock is ready for him he needs to be there to move the truck. How is that not being "on call"? If he wasn't working he could go catch a movie or dinner, sleep or whatever, but for some reason the law says it is OK to make him sit without pay to do his job.
How you pay for work performed is a complex matter. It's one that Adam Smith covers (as he does most topics) at length in Wealth of Nations. In particular he warns of the tendency to pitch compensation terms such that workers are overincentivized to work, reducing their overall productivity and burning out faster.
(I'm adding some paragraph breaks to Smith's text, this is a single paragraph in the original. Emphasis added as well.)
"The liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days, perhaps, in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious, than where they are low; in England, for example, than in Scotland; in the neighbourhood of great towns, than in remote country places.
"Some workmen, indeed, when they can earn in four days what will maintain them through the week, will be idle the other three. This, however, is by no means the case with the greater part. Workmen, on the contrary, when they are liberally paid by the piece, are very apt to overwork themselves, and to ruin their health and constitution in a few years. A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigour above eight years. Something of the same kind happens in many other trades, in which the workmen are paid by the piece; as they generally are in manufactures, and even in country labour, wherever wages are higher than ordinary. Almost every class of artificers is subject to some peculiar infirmity occasioned by excessive application to their peculiar species of work. Ramuzzini, an eminent Italian physician, has written a particular book concerning such diseases.
"We do not reckon our soldiers the most industrious set of people among us; yet when soldiers have been employed in some particular sorts of work, and liberally paid by the piece, their officers have frequently been obliged to stipulate with the undertaker, that they should not be allowed to earn above a certain sum every day, according to the rate at which they were paid. Till this stipulation was made, mutual emulation, and the desire of greater gain, frequently prompted them to overwork themselves, and to hurt their health by excessive labour.
"Excessive application, during four days of the week, is frequently the real cause of the idleness of the other three, so much and so loudly complained of. Great labour, either of mind or body, continued for several days together is, in most men, naturally followed by a great desire of relaxation, which, if not restrained by force, or by some strong necessity, is almost irresistible. It is the call of nature, which requires to be relieved by some indulgence, sometimes of ease only, but sometimes too of dissipation and diversion. If it is not complied with, the consequences are often dangerous and sometimes fatal, and such as almost always, sooner or later, bring on the peculiar infirmity of the trade.
"If masters would always listen to the dictates of reason and humanity, they have frequently occasion rather to moderate, than to animate the application of many of their workmen. It will be found, I believe, in every sort of trade, that the man who works so moderately, as to be able to work constantly, not only preserves his health the longest, but, in the course of the year, executes the greatest quantity of work."
An hourly wage is a very special payment system which requires some kind of foreman to be sustainable. Otherwise, the labour industry tends to drift towards inefficiencies that allow them to claim money for less work. This is classic agency risk, where the incentives are not aligned, and heading down this path often entails major bureaucracies to try and keep everyone honest (like time clocks and punch cards, a "boss" looking over you, etc).
Simply paying more within the existing structure makes perfect sense. It will actually have a disproportionate effect on recruitment when some of the most efficient drivers start bragging about making $160,000 a year driving trucks (this is one of the big drivers of immigration by the way. Compared to poorer nations, the streets are paved in gold in the USA, and some lucky immigrants find shovels to dig it up. Unfortunately, most people who come never get a shovel so it remains but a dream...).
Paying more by the mile absorbs the costs of refuelling and traffic, without giving any driver an incentive to waste time when, for example refuelling the truck. So rational truckers will go to gas stations that are more efficient and will get out of there as soon as they can.
Where the trucker has no agency, however, it could make sense to pay by the hour. For example, since loading is in the hands of another group as soon as the truck docks in, and since it can vary quite a bit based on warehouse, better that the driver is paid for time sitting around. You could argue that the driver's incentive is to rush the loaders, but I doubt they have any coercion in that process. So better that the shipping company have an incentive to make loadings as fast possible through influence over choice of warehouse, penalties to warehouses for slow loadings, etc.
I've never really thought about this industry before, but thinking about it now makes it sound very interesting!
If I take a contract job which pays $X / deliverable then I may end up doing some "free" work as well if something comes up that I hadn't accounted for. Same goes for my day job when I work past 6 (exempt, of course).
Not all jobs are hourly. Why should this change for truckers and no one else? Are you proposing that all jobs should pay for every minute of work? I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I'm interested in your reasoning.
Sorry, Swift's stock price is more about the horror show that is Swift's corporate governance. Especially CEO Jerry Moyes. The very fact that he'll keep his job after this dismal lack of forecasting is an example of how much corruption there is there. Honestly, I would not be surprised if it was intentional.
He had to step down 10 years ago due to insider trading with Swift shares. Now he's back after a they brought it private and then to a second IPO.
The stock tanked, in my opinion, because investors know they can't trust Jerry Moyes and Swift's board.
My semi-retired parents were lured in by the claims of making upwards of 80K a year if you worked hard enough. They did it for about three years and quit with more debt than when they started. You can only make decent money if you own your own rig, which costs as much as a house. Trucking is heavily regulated, but in ways that dump all the problems on the drivers. You are in competition with other drivers, which pretty much guarantees you're going to be cooking the books increasingly regulated-away ways, not to mention how dangerous it is.
There are exceptions to everything though, if you've been on the road long enough you make more money per mile as you build up a reputation, or you can make money money working for fedex or doing hazardous materials shipping, but it takes years of toiling in shit conditions for low pay to get to that point.
They also told me that they met a lot of people who clearly hadn't done the math, and were losing money instead of making it despite working very hard. The cost of the truck alone puts you in massive debt with no guarantee of work to pay it off.
As far as automating it, maybe in 20 years it will be viable. It's not useful to talk about that today.
I think automation will happen sooner than we expect. 5-8 years seems likely to me. There is a hurdle with interstate trucking, where some states will lag behind in allowing it and providing the required bureaucratic support. But it is already technologically possible, if not yet a fully developed product. It just takes one company to get it allowed in one state and start doing it, the others will follow. Self driving personal vehicles are 1-3 years away from being on the market, it seems natural that trucking will follow.
I think trained people might still handle the parking though for a while :P
> But corporate America has become so parsimonious about paying workers outside the executive suite that meaningful wage increases may seem an unacceptable affront. In this environment, it may be easier to say “There is a shortage of skilled workers” than “We aren’t paying our workers enough,” even if, in economic terms, those come down to the same thing.
The "worker shortage" concept is seriously one of the dumbest memes of corporate America. There's a ton of people out of work, and it doesn't take much in the way of skill to be a truck driver. Companies simply aren't paying enough for what can be a very demanding job.
If a business owner raises wages, he solves his labor problem but spends more money and reduces profit.
If instead he complains about a labor shortage, then maybe politicians will pass a law allowing more immigration and he will be able to lower his wages and increase his profit.
It's beneficial for business owners for there to be a general belief in a labor shortage but it is not beneficial for people to believe they are stingy.
As far as I know, that equivalence betwixt "shortage of workers" and "not paying workers enough" holds for economists as far apart as Milton Friedman and John Maynard Keynes. That makes management's policy especially inexcusable.
And it's not like trucking is a good job. For that princely (!!!) $41k / year, you are often away from home. I'd bet you don't get comped for all the meals you eat on the road either, so there goes a bunch of money spent eating out, even if it is just at truck stop diners. If you have a family, and and your partner has a job -- as he or she must, given that shit salary -- knock $4-$10k/year off for daycare as well. I mean, I'm just stunned people aren't begging for these jobs. Not to mention that from some reading, and I unfortunately forgot the link, it appears that truckers have to choose between keeping their jobs or obeying safety regulations. But never you worry, if they get caught violating sleep requirements only they get in trouble, not the companies.
It's funny; this story is a perfect analogy [1] for [2] something [3] but [4] I [5] just [6] can't [7] think [8] of [9] what [10]. Meanwhile, true story: a former employer not only completely lied to me about what I'd be doing, but then threw a fit when I quit two months in. And sent potential engineering recruits a python puzzle with a naked woman in it. It's a shock why employers have trouble hiring is all I'm saying...
They are slightly different, though I agree that most of the time it's a matter of greedy or shortsighted executives being cheap or expecting workers to bear the cost of training.
How they're different: you may well have a situation where the short term supply of workers is highly inelastic. In that situation, paying more won't help any shortage. And some jobs that you would think are elastic in the long term aren't as much as you might think: the majority of people may simply be unable to perform the job, or uncertainties about the job's existence in four years might mean the expected return of training is very low or negative.
If people are not sanguine about the existence of trucking jobs 10 years from now, it's no surprise that the actual supply of labor is very low and not looking to expand soon. If you're an employer, you're probably best off using your monopsonist position to drive down wages of the current supply instead of paying handsome sums to coax people into taking big risks in preparing and dedicating themselves to your jobs. Especially if you're an executive rewarded on the timescales of a year or two, and not on timescales of a decade.
Hmmm, why are we still talking about truck drivers exactly?
The trucking industry is about to tank hard. Mercedes demo'd its first driverless truck a couple of weeks ago (!). Yes, there will be specialists drivers sure and niche companies. But the day of the interstate road train will be done shortly.
The biggest new niche in my mind will be vehicle security. These trucks will be flying solo across the nation - unmanned. How will these trucks be fitted out against good ol' fashioned highway robbers in remote areas that are barely on the grid?
I like your optimism, but realistically self driving trucks on American highways are a long way off. How will the trucks refuel? How will they handle loading and unloading? How will they handle inclement weather? What is the insurance liability for putting them on public roads? Who will be sued when a driverless truck crashes into another car (at fault or not)?
Even Mercedes says in that article, "the Highway Pilot system could be launched into production trucks 'as early as 2025 if conditions permit'." Which is basically corporate speak for, "we have no idea if this will ever launch, but it will get investors excited now."
>How will these trucks be fitted out against good ol' fashioned highway robbers in remote areas that are barely on the grid?
They would handle it the exact same way the ones with drivers do. They would do nothing while it is happening but contact the police and claim insurance. The only difference is no one is at risk of dying and they will likely have video evidence.
Even that article puts a minimum of 10 years before automated trucks get on the roads. So, we're talking about truck drivers because it's not acceptable to forget about them for a decade "because they'll be gone someday."
Can the driver-less truck put chains on its tires in the winter? I didn't think so.
I'm sure that we'll make use of the tech we have but there is so much more to driving a truck than driving. Maybe the "drivers" will be able to climb in the back and sleep while the truck does they driving and they can take care of everything else.
That's not good news for the truck drivers. I can even see automation getting banned in many states. In the same way some places require an attendant at gas stations.
Sounds like the same argument being used for more H1B visas. We cant find enough (cheap) resources locally so we need to import some from elsewhere willing to work for a pittance.
The strength of the argument changes with market elasticity.
If a single company has trouble hiring, they can raise salaries. However, if the pool of workers remains finite, all you are really doing is switching which company has the hiring problem. If two people need an all day plumbing job done today, and there's only one plumber in time, one of them is not going to get it done, regardless of how much they pay.
So when we look industry-wide, what the salary increases do is make people change professions. If it takes the same effort to become a truck driver than a cab driver, but the truck driver makes 4 times as much, everything else being equal, we'll have more trouble finding people to be cabbies, as long as there's an opportunity trucking. People then decide which training they get to choose. But the real demand problem is not solved until the workers are trained.
We don't even need workers for this. Imagine that we suddenly need 60 million gallons of 25 year old scotch every day. It doesn't matter how much we want to pay: There isn't enough scotch to meet demand today. If we paid a million dollars a bottle, it'd not make a difference: We'd only get an increase in supply as time goes by, and people just put more scotch on casks, and don't open the casks at 15 years, because 25 makes more money: But nothing is going to make this demand shock get fixed earlier, no matter how much you pay.
So the harder it is to actually perform the job, and the longer it takes to train, the stronger the immigration argument gets.
Automating a fleet of trucks has come up few times in these comments. Many commenters have raised concerns of difficult and special situations.
I have worked with machine vision and currently I'm doing my PhD in computational logistics (mainly working on automating the deployment of Vehicle Routing Systems). With this background in mind have given some tought to this: What would be needed, at least in the transition phase, is technology that would allow remote drive-by-wire of trucks in difficult situations (platforms, urban traffic) and wheater conditions.
Imagine a system not entirely unlike the unmanned UAVs the US is using but for civilian use of remote controlling trucks. One driver could probably handle dowzen or so trucks because they would drive under full automation at least 90% of the time. In addition the truck driver could have a normal 9 to 5 job.
Of course there are technical challenges like communications delay etc., but I'd like to hear your opinion on feasibility of such system.
Delay in the control loop is always critical to accurate control. But in the case of a large heavy truck, we already have to live with that (slow acceleration/braking/steering response built in).
I've got a good friend with his Masters degree who quit teaching school to drive a truck because it paid so much more. He makes a great deal more than $41 K a year. It must depend on the particular company and the alternatives where you live.
I researched this a bunch at one point. Some of the primary variables are:
* Licensure (e.g. if you have a Hazmat endorsement)
* Route type (Long haul pays a lot more)
* Driver's safety record
* Employment status - Independent contractors who own their own rig vs captive employees
Etc.
> For example, new safety requirements mean that individual truckers drive fewer miles than a decade ago: An average long-haul truck can now cover 8,000 miles a month, down from almost 11,000 in 2007, according to the trade association.
So the maximum miles driven per month is 73% of what it was in 2007, whereas the inflation-adjusted salary is 97% (based on eyeballing the graph) of what it was.
Now, if despite the higher maximum drivers were going, say 9000 miles a month before 2007, the difference would be less stark. Nevertheless, viewing from that perspective makes the situation seem much different.
Of course, that doesn't account for the 03-07 downward trend.
And while I do agree in theory that they should "just" raise wages if they need more drivers, we should be careful jumping to conclusions as outsiders. After all, it is possible, for instance, that paying new (and probably many existing) drivers more could eat up the revenues gained from the customers they're currently turning away. And moreover, said prospective customers could adapt so that by the time the trucking companies have enough drivers, the orders are no longer there.
Not surprisingly this is the first step in that process. Automating the driving of trucks is expensive, there was at one time an ample supply of truck drivers keeping wages low, so no automation. As the cost of human drivers goes up, it changes the math with respect to automation, once it hits the tipping point the change over is inevitable.
We saw an exact corollary of this with automation in Chinese factories. As long as the cost of labor was lower than the cost of automation factories remained manual only shops, but the cost of labor has gone up, and with it have come robots. What I find particularly fascinating is that in the labor case the manufacturing went off shore first (it was cheaper to hire Chinese workers) and now it is being automated, in China. Since you cannot easily off shore truck driving that option doesn't exist.
I do however keep my eye out for 'teleoperated' trucks. Something which is a mix of robotic driving with supervision and command and control with a human. This is also possible today and would allow a trucking company to operate more trucks with fewer drivers, but it also requires some automation on refueling. The system has resisted this form for a while.
So what I took away from the NYT article was that the economics of trucking are entering the point where the system can support more dramatic changes than it has in the past. That means there are opportunities there.
I think we're quite a bit farther away from self-driving semis than from self-driving cars. Big trucks are much more dangerous vehicles than cars: their braking distances are much longer, their weight makes it possible for them to destroy any cars in their path, they can require multiple lanes to make a turn, many car drivers don't know how to drive safely near trucks, etc.
Long-distance trucking seems like a huge and obvious market for autonomous vehicles. Trucks mostly travel along Interstate highways and drivers have mandatory rest periods. Usually that means the truck sits somewhere, sometimes with the engine on.
Margins are VERY tight in transportation. In a solid company most of this should be going to pay drivers, and in decent companies it does they can make a pretty decent paycheck (none of that per mile crap) BUT with licensing points and experience being the biggest roadblocks getting decent drivers. Plus how many kids are growing up to be truck drivers these days... not many
Then trucking companies can maintain their margins by charging more to haul goods. If there really is excess demand, then the market should be able to absorb price increases.
I have some familiarity with the trucking industry in the midwest. I can also confirm that there's a shortage of drivers in the region.
The funny thing is that at some companies, working some overtime (although under the safety limit), drivers can make ~$80k including benefits, which is pretty good considering the cost of living there.
"In this environment, it may be easier to say 'There is a shortage of skilled workers' than 'We aren’t paying our workers enough,' even if, in economic terms, those come down to the same thing."
No, those aren't necessarily the same thing. Even if there was a surplus of licensed truck drivers to meet the new demand, it does not mean that the sole reason trucking companies don't wish to hire more workers is because it will cost too much in wages. I suspect the reason they don't hire more truckers to fill existing empty truck seats is for the following reasons:
1) Every truck runs with a huge damage liability (life insurance, lost goods, rebates to customers). A string of truck crashes from the increased volume would rapidly eat into the profits of more business.
2) Operating costs: gas, computer systems, dispatchers, parts, labor. It may be cheaper to raise prices on existing routes, and leave a few trucks empty.
Here's another snippit:
"It’s not an ideal job for everyone. There is no question that trucking is hard work, necessitating long hours and longer stretches away from family. But that’s why it is well compensated, at least in comparison to other jobs not requiring college degrees."
Nobody is paid because the job is hard and lonely. Oil workers in North Dakota aren't paid 250k a year because it's "5 times" harder than a desk job of 50k. Companies pay workers based on what the company expects its customers will pay. No matter how hard the job is, if the market doesn't want to pay higher prices to move goods via truck (which is what would happen if you rose trucker's salaries to 50k instead of 40k, for example), then the companies employing the truckers won't want to take on those higher wage costs.
So TLDR, if you feel you can run a more cost-efficient trucking company, then go fucking do it.
[+] [-] the_ancient|11 years ago|reply
Most Truckers are paid by the mile... So if your sitting in traffic no pay (next time your stopped in traffic look around, how many semi's are sitting with you, most of those drivers are doing it for free)
Then there is load and unload time, which for some companies is non-paid, other is a nominal flat rate of like $35 that could take up hours of your day.
Then there is the "hours of service" which many companies require their drivers go "off duty" when they arrive at warehouse, but the warehouse required them to monitor the CB Radio to be called to pull into a dock, so their "sleep" time is taken up waiting to be unloaded, and they do this waiting for free.
Trucking companies need to end the practice of per mile pay, and start paying drivers Per Hour or a Salary (non-exempt) like every other company.
[+] [-] twothamendment|11 years ago|reply
I know a driver who spends 2-6 hours waiting to be unloaded. He doesn't get paid for that time but isn't free to leave the truck because when the loading dock is ready for him he needs to be there to move the truck. How is that not being "on call"? If he wasn't working he could go catch a movie or dinner, sleep or whatever, but for some reason the law says it is OK to make him sit without pay to do his job.
[+] [-] dredmorbius|11 years ago|reply
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm
(I'm adding some paragraph breaks to Smith's text, this is a single paragraph in the original. Emphasis added as well.)
"The liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, so it increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labour are the encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence increases the bodily strength of the labourer, and the comfortable hope of bettering his condition, and of ending his days, perhaps, in ease and plenty, animates him to exert that strength to the utmost. Where wages are high, accordingly, we shall always find the workmen more active, diligent, and expeditious, than where they are low; in England, for example, than in Scotland; in the neighbourhood of great towns, than in remote country places.
"Some workmen, indeed, when they can earn in four days what will maintain them through the week, will be idle the other three. This, however, is by no means the case with the greater part. Workmen, on the contrary, when they are liberally paid by the piece, are very apt to overwork themselves, and to ruin their health and constitution in a few years. A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigour above eight years. Something of the same kind happens in many other trades, in which the workmen are paid by the piece; as they generally are in manufactures, and even in country labour, wherever wages are higher than ordinary. Almost every class of artificers is subject to some peculiar infirmity occasioned by excessive application to their peculiar species of work. Ramuzzini, an eminent Italian physician, has written a particular book concerning such diseases.
"We do not reckon our soldiers the most industrious set of people among us; yet when soldiers have been employed in some particular sorts of work, and liberally paid by the piece, their officers have frequently been obliged to stipulate with the undertaker, that they should not be allowed to earn above a certain sum every day, according to the rate at which they were paid. Till this stipulation was made, mutual emulation, and the desire of greater gain, frequently prompted them to overwork themselves, and to hurt their health by excessive labour.
"Excessive application, during four days of the week, is frequently the real cause of the idleness of the other three, so much and so loudly complained of. Great labour, either of mind or body, continued for several days together is, in most men, naturally followed by a great desire of relaxation, which, if not restrained by force, or by some strong necessity, is almost irresistible. It is the call of nature, which requires to be relieved by some indulgence, sometimes of ease only, but sometimes too of dissipation and diversion. If it is not complied with, the consequences are often dangerous and sometimes fatal, and such as almost always, sooner or later, bring on the peculiar infirmity of the trade.
"If masters would always listen to the dictates of reason and humanity, they have frequently occasion rather to moderate, than to animate the application of many of their workmen. It will be found, I believe, in every sort of trade, that the man who works so moderately, as to be able to work constantly, not only preserves his health the longest, but, in the course of the year, executes the greatest quantity of work."
[+] [-] anifow|11 years ago|reply
An hourly wage is a very special payment system which requires some kind of foreman to be sustainable. Otherwise, the labour industry tends to drift towards inefficiencies that allow them to claim money for less work. This is classic agency risk, where the incentives are not aligned, and heading down this path often entails major bureaucracies to try and keep everyone honest (like time clocks and punch cards, a "boss" looking over you, etc).
Simply paying more within the existing structure makes perfect sense. It will actually have a disproportionate effect on recruitment when some of the most efficient drivers start bragging about making $160,000 a year driving trucks (this is one of the big drivers of immigration by the way. Compared to poorer nations, the streets are paved in gold in the USA, and some lucky immigrants find shovels to dig it up. Unfortunately, most people who come never get a shovel so it remains but a dream...).
Paying more by the mile absorbs the costs of refuelling and traffic, without giving any driver an incentive to waste time when, for example refuelling the truck. So rational truckers will go to gas stations that are more efficient and will get out of there as soon as they can.
Where the trucker has no agency, however, it could make sense to pay by the hour. For example, since loading is in the hands of another group as soon as the truck docks in, and since it can vary quite a bit based on warehouse, better that the driver is paid for time sitting around. You could argue that the driver's incentive is to rush the loaders, but I doubt they have any coercion in that process. So better that the shipping company have an incentive to make loadings as fast possible through influence over choice of warehouse, penalties to warehouses for slow loadings, etc.
I've never really thought about this industry before, but thinking about it now makes it sound very interesting!
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] EpicEng|11 years ago|reply
Not all jobs are hourly. Why should this change for truckers and no one else? Are you proposing that all jobs should pay for every minute of work? I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I'm interested in your reasoning.
[+] [-] fred_durst|11 years ago|reply
He had to step down 10 years ago due to insider trading with Swift shares. Now he's back after a they brought it private and then to a second IPO.
The stock tanked, in my opinion, because investors know they can't trust Jerry Moyes and Swift's board.
More fun stuff.
http://teamster.org/content/teamsters-warn-swift-transportat... http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/9796076/nhl-lawsuit-jerry-...
[+] [-] A_COMPUTER|11 years ago|reply
There are exceptions to everything though, if you've been on the road long enough you make more money per mile as you build up a reputation, or you can make money money working for fedex or doing hazardous materials shipping, but it takes years of toiling in shit conditions for low pay to get to that point.
They also told me that they met a lot of people who clearly hadn't done the math, and were losing money instead of making it despite working very hard. The cost of the truck alone puts you in massive debt with no guarantee of work to pay it off.
As far as automating it, maybe in 20 years it will be viable. It's not useful to talk about that today.
[+] [-] msane|11 years ago|reply
I think trained people might still handle the parking though for a while :P
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] polarix|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crassus2|11 years ago|reply
If instead he complains about a labor shortage, then maybe politicians will pass a law allowing more immigration and he will be able to lower his wages and increase his profit.
It's beneficial for business owners for there to be a general belief in a labor shortage but it is not beneficial for people to believe they are stingy.
[+] [-] winestock|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] x0x0|11 years ago|reply
It's funny; this story is a perfect analogy [1] for [2] something [3] but [4] I [5] just [6] can't [7] think [8] of [9] what [10]. Meanwhile, true story: a former employer not only completely lied to me about what I'd be doing, but then threw a fit when I quit two months in. And sent potential engineering recruits a python puzzle with a naked woman in it. It's a shock why employers have trouble hiring is all I'm saying...
[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB113210508287498432
[2] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/11/1201127/-Facebook-C...
[3] http://www.forbes.com/sites/ayoomojola/2013/07/15/the-shorta...
[4] http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/11/technology/zuckerberg-tech-p...
[5] http://www.crn.com/news/channel-programs/240163468/nice-work...
[6] http://www.infoworld.com/t/h-1b/silicon-valley-leaders-unite...
[7] http://thehill.com/policy/technology/258985-microsoft-lack-o...
[8] http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/Real-estate-...
[9] http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/08/07/gasp_sfs_housing_ma...
[10] http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/201...
[+] [-] scarmig|11 years ago|reply
How they're different: you may well have a situation where the short term supply of workers is highly inelastic. In that situation, paying more won't help any shortage. And some jobs that you would think are elastic in the long term aren't as much as you might think: the majority of people may simply be unable to perform the job, or uncertainties about the job's existence in four years might mean the expected return of training is very low or negative.
If people are not sanguine about the existence of trucking jobs 10 years from now, it's no surprise that the actual supply of labor is very low and not looking to expand soon. If you're an employer, you're probably best off using your monopsonist position to drive down wages of the current supply instead of paying handsome sums to coax people into taking big risks in preparing and dedicating themselves to your jobs. Especially if you're an executive rewarded on the timescales of a year or two, and not on timescales of a decade.
[+] [-] l33tbro|11 years ago|reply
The trucking industry is about to tank hard. Mercedes demo'd its first driverless truck a couple of weeks ago (!). Yes, there will be specialists drivers sure and niche companies. But the day of the interstate road train will be done shortly.
The biggest new niche in my mind will be vehicle security. These trucks will be flying solo across the nation - unmanned. How will these trucks be fitted out against good ol' fashioned highway robbers in remote areas that are barely on the grid?
Fun times ahead.
(!). http://www.caradvice.com.au/295713/self-driving-mercedes-ben...
[+] [-] tdicola|11 years ago|reply
Even Mercedes says in that article, "the Highway Pilot system could be launched into production trucks 'as early as 2025 if conditions permit'." Which is basically corporate speak for, "we have no idea if this will ever launch, but it will get investors excited now."
[+] [-] sanswork|11 years ago|reply
They would handle it the exact same way the ones with drivers do. They would do nothing while it is happening but contact the police and claim insurance. The only difference is no one is at risk of dying and they will likely have video evidence.
[+] [-] burkaman|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] twothamendment|11 years ago|reply
I'm sure that we'll make use of the tech we have but there is so much more to driving a truck than driving. Maybe the "drivers" will be able to climb in the back and sleep while the truck does they driving and they can take care of everything else.
[+] [-] Houshalter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] venomsnake|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stretchwithme|11 years ago|reply
Plus Robocop will be hiding in the back and killing him with carbon monoxide will not be an option.
Of course, when thieves start using robots to do the stealing, it will get tough.
[+] [-] lgleason|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hibikir|11 years ago|reply
If a single company has trouble hiring, they can raise salaries. However, if the pool of workers remains finite, all you are really doing is switching which company has the hiring problem. If two people need an all day plumbing job done today, and there's only one plumber in time, one of them is not going to get it done, regardless of how much they pay.
So when we look industry-wide, what the salary increases do is make people change professions. If it takes the same effort to become a truck driver than a cab driver, but the truck driver makes 4 times as much, everything else being equal, we'll have more trouble finding people to be cabbies, as long as there's an opportunity trucking. People then decide which training they get to choose. But the real demand problem is not solved until the workers are trained.
We don't even need workers for this. Imagine that we suddenly need 60 million gallons of 25 year old scotch every day. It doesn't matter how much we want to pay: There isn't enough scotch to meet demand today. If we paid a million dollars a bottle, it'd not make a difference: We'd only get an increase in supply as time goes by, and people just put more scotch on casks, and don't open the casks at 15 years, because 25 makes more money: But nothing is going to make this demand shock get fixed earlier, no matter how much you pay.
So the harder it is to actually perform the job, and the longer it takes to train, the stronger the immigration argument gets.
[+] [-] yorak|11 years ago|reply
I have worked with machine vision and currently I'm doing my PhD in computational logistics (mainly working on automating the deployment of Vehicle Routing Systems). With this background in mind have given some tought to this: What would be needed, at least in the transition phase, is technology that would allow remote drive-by-wire of trucks in difficult situations (platforms, urban traffic) and wheater conditions.
Imagine a system not entirely unlike the unmanned UAVs the US is using but for civilian use of remote controlling trucks. One driver could probably handle dowzen or so trucks because they would drive under full automation at least 90% of the time. In addition the truck driver could have a normal 9 to 5 job.
Of course there are technical challenges like communications delay etc., but I'd like to hear your opinion on feasibility of such system.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmason|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tapp|11 years ago|reply
* Licensure (e.g. if you have a Hazmat endorsement) * Route type (Long haul pays a lot more) * Driver's safety record * Employment status - Independent contractors who own their own rig vs captive employees Etc.
[+] [-] briandh|11 years ago|reply
> For example, new safety requirements mean that individual truckers drive fewer miles than a decade ago: An average long-haul truck can now cover 8,000 miles a month, down from almost 11,000 in 2007, according to the trade association.
So the maximum miles driven per month is 73% of what it was in 2007, whereas the inflation-adjusted salary is 97% (based on eyeballing the graph) of what it was.
Now, if despite the higher maximum drivers were going, say 9000 miles a month before 2007, the difference would be less stark. Nevertheless, viewing from that perspective makes the situation seem much different.
Of course, that doesn't account for the 03-07 downward trend.
And while I do agree in theory that they should "just" raise wages if they need more drivers, we should be careful jumping to conclusions as outsiders. After all, it is possible, for instance, that paying new (and probably many existing) drivers more could eat up the revenues gained from the customers they're currently turning away. And moreover, said prospective customers could adapt so that by the time the trucking companies have enough drivers, the orders are no longer there.
[+] [-] hughes|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ChuckMcM|11 years ago|reply
We saw an exact corollary of this with automation in Chinese factories. As long as the cost of labor was lower than the cost of automation factories remained manual only shops, but the cost of labor has gone up, and with it have come robots. What I find particularly fascinating is that in the labor case the manufacturing went off shore first (it was cheaper to hire Chinese workers) and now it is being automated, in China. Since you cannot easily off shore truck driving that option doesn't exist.
I do however keep my eye out for 'teleoperated' trucks. Something which is a mix of robotic driving with supervision and command and control with a human. This is also possible today and would allow a trucking company to operate more trucks with fewer drivers, but it also requires some automation on refueling. The system has resisted this form for a while.
So what I took away from the NYT article was that the economics of trucking are entering the point where the system can support more dramatic changes than it has in the past. That means there are opportunities there.
[+] [-] greenyoda|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|11 years ago|reply
There's no automated cross country trains and those move on a predictable path.
Although I would love to see it happen because of how incredibly efficient it would make the transportation industry.
[+] [-] idlewords|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2close4comfort|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LargeWu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frozenport|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Havvy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dehmlow|11 years ago|reply
The funny thing is that at some companies, working some overtime (although under the safety limit), drivers can make ~$80k including benefits, which is pretty good considering the cost of living there.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gremlinsinc|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jtshana92|11 years ago|reply
"In this environment, it may be easier to say 'There is a shortage of skilled workers' than 'We aren’t paying our workers enough,' even if, in economic terms, those come down to the same thing."
No, those aren't necessarily the same thing. Even if there was a surplus of licensed truck drivers to meet the new demand, it does not mean that the sole reason trucking companies don't wish to hire more workers is because it will cost too much in wages. I suspect the reason they don't hire more truckers to fill existing empty truck seats is for the following reasons:
1) Every truck runs with a huge damage liability (life insurance, lost goods, rebates to customers). A string of truck crashes from the increased volume would rapidly eat into the profits of more business.
2) Operating costs: gas, computer systems, dispatchers, parts, labor. It may be cheaper to raise prices on existing routes, and leave a few trucks empty.
Here's another snippit:
"It’s not an ideal job for everyone. There is no question that trucking is hard work, necessitating long hours and longer stretches away from family. But that’s why it is well compensated, at least in comparison to other jobs not requiring college degrees."
Nobody is paid because the job is hard and lonely. Oil workers in North Dakota aren't paid 250k a year because it's "5 times" harder than a desk job of 50k. Companies pay workers based on what the company expects its customers will pay. No matter how hard the job is, if the market doesn't want to pay higher prices to move goods via truck (which is what would happen if you rose trucker's salaries to 50k instead of 40k, for example), then the companies employing the truckers won't want to take on those higher wage costs.
So TLDR, if you feel you can run a more cost-efficient trucking company, then go fucking do it.
[+] [-] grondilu|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Thimothy|11 years ago|reply