Hacker News Reader

Comment by fzeroracer | Hacker News Reader

No, not necessarily. Correlation is not causation and what not.

If trucking prices go up, companies might opt to move more cargo at the same time (same amount of moved cargo, but less trucks on the road) or they might simply eat the loss (if they're already making massive profits) or any number of alternatives.

If we were to take your argument into absurdity, the best thing to do would be to reduce trucking prices to $0, because then we would fundamentally move a lot more cargo, which would drive down prices across all of the US benefiting a lot more than just the small minority of truckers.

It's an overly simplistic way of looking at things that reminds me of the assumption that raising the minimum wage would cause the prices on everything to hike up by the same amount.

View on HN

absurdity, the best thing to do would be to reduce trucking prices to $0

What is absurd about that? If we could wave a magic wand and reduce the real transportation cost of goods to 0, it would have massive beneficial effects in the overall economy. In large part we're seeing the benefit of that in the macro due to the (formerly) falling cost of global shipping.

It's magical thinking that an increase in the cost of transport won't have some sort of negative effect on the economy.

This isn't an increase in the cost of transport, this is an increase in the cost of trucking. There's a subtle but very important distinction there because the actual human cost of trucking (ie wages, healthcare etc) is likely much smaller than the costs of fuel, maintenance and many more externalities.

Yes, if you could magically teleport goods from one location to another, that would be fantastic for the economy and terrible for truckers. I think it's more magical thinking however to look at one statistic and assume that it would lead to doom and gloom, as many did when Seattle decided to change the minimum wage to $15.

That said, if we believe that reducing the cost of trucking at all costs is important to the economy: Why not just remove all worker protections? In fact, why not just not pay workers at all? We have plenty of prisoners that could be truck drivers.

We can kick out all of the high earning truck drivers being leeches on the economy by increasing the cost of transport and replace them with something far cheaper until automation comes along. That sounds like a good idea, yeah?

> If we were to take your argument into absurdity

I'm making an observation, not an argument.

The Fortune 500 made $1.1 trillion in corporate profits last year. The notion that they'll buy less stuff because shipping now costs $5 extra is ludicrous. Their problem is what to do with all that surplus cash now that they've bought down short-term Treasuries to basically 0% interest, a 1-3% increase in shipping costs wouldn't even appear on their "OMG!" radar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com