ScoobiusMaximus t1_iym9w30 wrote

The cost preventing the US from building infrastructure the way China does is a lot more than just labor rules. Our salaries are like 10x higher (to compete with other industry in the US, not because of regulation), environmental laws exist, and land rights are constantly an issue that people sue over for example. The ability to treat your employees like shit won't change those things.


ScoobiusMaximus t1_iym71mn wrote

I'm not saying they were treated well, I'm wondering what your point is.

I will point out that labor conditions in the 1880s in the south were a hell of a lot better than they were in the 1850s, yet the south didn't change their rail gauge then despite their massive number of slaves. I don't think labor rules were what made moving the rail gauge then and not before happen. I doubt labor rules today would prevent moving a rail gauge either.


ScoobiusMaximus t1_iym4roj wrote

For those examples sure, there wouldn't be that much direct savings. But if you pick countries that actually have a land border instead of purposefully stupid examples then it facilitates rail transit between those countries a lot more easily.


ScoobiusMaximus t1_ixowiuv wrote

His argument may be reductive but it isn't untrue. Australia could make great use of solar installations for energy generation at a local level regardless of how remote places are, and wind in a lot of places as well. The Australian government has been a major obstacle to progress in regards to any form of climate action.