ImminentZero t1_je26kph wrote

My employer pays me for labor already done, not for labor yet to come. Anybody making an hourly wage has it the same.

Nobody this article or the other commenter is taking about is paid up front, they're paid according to the labor they've delivered. If they were paid first then you could argue something is owed.


ImminentZero t1_jd3128c wrote

Wait, so you made a claim that progressives were siding with the capitalists, then you hedged to "not all progressives but some", and then when asked for an example, your response is "do your own research, bro"?

Just admit your comment was a supposition based on nothing but what's in your head, dude. This all just makes you look nonsensical.


ImminentZero t1_j64n0ap wrote

You keep linking a site that doesn't provide any sources for its claims or information, and even a cursory dive into any of the specific claims reveals that the only sources for them have either been discredited directly or have themselves failed to provide any empirical evidence in support.


ImminentZero t1_j5uwovl wrote

The quest for efficiency is how we got to this point though. Rail companies are at a point where they've cut so deeply that they are unable to absorb an employee calling out sick unexpectedly. This is explicitly due to headcount reduction and a "do more with less" push. Of course this could be alleviated by investing in human capital for the company, at a cost to the bottom line, and the rail companies explicitly refuse to do so.

There is no rational reason to not provide the employees with better pay and benefits, in addition to surge hiring headcount needed to facilitate the new benefits (people to cover leave primarily.)

When a company is acting irrationally as they are in this case, and instead spending the profits on stock buybacks to enrich shareholders, it strains credulity to imply that continuing to operate as they are is in the best interest of the company, and that a change that removes the basis of the irrationality would somehow be more detrimental.


ImminentZero t1_j5uu65u wrote

Definitely not a tankie. You also aren't refuting anything I've said. Name calling is not an argument.

If you knew your history you'd also know it wouldn't be the first time railroads were nationalized in the US, and that it's not just places like China that have nationalized critical infrastructure.


ImminentZero t1_j5uooir wrote

Because if the profit motive is what has brought us to the point of nearly having a rail shipping shutdown that would be so damaging to the economy and supply chains that Congress itself stepped in to avert it, then the profit motive has to go.

What other reason is there for not increasing employee costs during a time of record profit, other than the profit motive that is required by shareholders?

I don't say this just for rail, I believe that ALL critical infrastructure should be nationalized. If something is required for survival it should not be left to the whims of people whose first concern is their portfolio and not the general welfare.


ImminentZero t1_j4vlpw1 wrote

>Quantum seems hokey

The device you're using to type this comment exists explicitly because of quantum mechanics. Modern chip fabrication exists due to discoveries related to quantum mechanics. It's far from hokey, it's responsible for most of our modern day technological existence.

You don't get to smartphones with pure old solid state electronics.