Injin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 'Unfortunately' true price discovery isn't occuring in this industry as people aren't allowed to negotiate individual wages, or even join as a trainee driver on individuallu-negoticated wages EVEN IF THEY WANT TO. If it were to occur, I strongly suspect that the current drivers wouldn't go on strike because there'd be nothing to stop the company hiring cheaper drivers and laying off the expensive drivers (in a free system). What stops them? if it's that the current train drivers will strike, then theres no problem at all. People who have a club don't have to let you join. if theres some law then that would of course be wrong, but afaik the state stopped protecting unions closed shops some time ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 When the engine drivers are getting paid more than the engine-ers you know something is wrong and collapse in prices isnt far off. maybe we'll have our deflation after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1888 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Nobody owes you anything. Theres no reason "for society to function" if those within it doing the work decide to jack it in. some people have a "social conscience" on the effect of withdrawing their labour and some dont Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Im in...Id do it for 35K. I would do it for £30k and pay for my own training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sillybear2 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 What if a train driver wants to work for less that is being demanded by the unions? Bob Crow ties you to the front of a sleeper train in London then asks you if you've changed your mind by the time you arrive in Edinburgh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Well, and you neglected to mention this before - you solely concentrated on the right of train drivers to cease working... I WONDER WHY?! No, you don't wonder why, you've jumped to a conclusion (and are wrong.) I'm just defending the process is all. I don't care what the outcome of letting the process run turns out to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 I would do it for £30k and pay for my own training. here we go!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 some people have a "social conscience" on the effect of withdrawing their labour and some dont Some people let guilt drive their actions. Others are adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 No, you don't wonder why, you've jumped to a conclusion (and are wrong.) I'm just defending the process is all. I don't care what the outcome of letting the process run turns out to be. So you also defend the right of the company to sack the workers any time they like if they find adequately qualified (but lower paid) people to replace the existing workers??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 When the engine drivers are getting paid more than the engine-ers you know something is wrong and collapse in prices isnt far off. maybe we'll have our deflation after all. the wage cost of a train driver in the context of the full operating costs of the train he/she drives is probably a rounding error - if you burn £5,000 every time you touch the brakes, then being overpaid by £5-10,000 per year is nothing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 healthcare is not a true free market as the information available to consumers is heavily distorted due to short term emotional and cash considerations - ie putting off long-term preventative care due to short term costs that the free market tends not to factor in beyond the medium term this is why imho there will always be a need for some state involvement in healthcare - not least because those that lose out the most from an unrestrained market - the porr - constitute a lost economic resource for the rest of society Bit confused about the 1st paragraph - you seem to be saying that there isn't information because people make choices to maximise their short term benefit over long term considerations. That's not shortage of information, that's choice. And someone else's poor health is no cost to me in a free market, but compelling everyone to do stuff now because someone in charge think they should most definitely is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 So you also defend the right of the company to sack the workers any time they like if they find adequately qualified (but lower paid) people to replace the existing workers??? They already can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 They already can. The question was, do you defend the right of the company to do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Bit confused about the 1st paragraph - you seem to be saying that there isn't information because people make choices to maximise their short term benefit over long term considerations. That's not shortage of information, that's choice. no - they irrationally reduce the importance of future likelihoods, this is human nature and is a key psychological point of failure in free markets, that happens to be accentuated in the health industry And someone else's poor health is no cost to me in a free market yes it is - the more people who can work the richer we are, in a free market, thereby increasing your own financial leverage, enabling you to specialise more and earn more because of that specialisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 The question was, do you defend the right of the company to do this? Well yes, but it doesn't actually need defending, nor pointing out. They already can sack all the train drivers and replace them with new folks, so it's not worth mentioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Well yes, but it doesn't actually need defending, nor pointing out. They already can sack all the train drivers and replace them with new folks, so it's not worth mentioning. Thanks for clarifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 More seriously, take a look at Mercedes S-Class. The latest versions will virtually drive themselves. In the FREE MARKET, technology is making chuaffeurs redundant. And chauffering is far more skilled than train driving. Given that individual cars and plains can now be operated by technology, do you not find it odd that in the world of the train, cars continue to be struck on level crossing whilst 'drivers' demand £39k for a 35hr week? I suggest to you that here is no free market in the train business, and becasue of that, high prices can not be relied upon to be a cure for high prices. Hah, people started dumping Mercedes and other top marques coz all the extra wizardry made them less reliable (a short while ago) & and it cost a fortune every time they went near the garage. Mercedes had to go back to the drawing board and start again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Thanks for clarifying. Great - so do also agree that the train drivers have every right to down tools, singly or working with each other for any reason (or even no reason) any time they like? Top Tip - it's the same principle, that of free association. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 the wage cost of a train driver in the context of the full operating costs of the train he/she drives is probably a rounding error - if you burn £5,000 every time you touch the brakes, then being overpaid by £5-10,000 per year is nothing It seems to me we are at a crossroad. Will the highly skilled people getting paid less than the low skilled train driver decide enough is enough and leave the country, will people be no longer able to commute due to the costs, will people just get sick of being held to ransom by corporations....if the people who dont generate real wealth cant afford things...the game is up. i.e. The game is up. These people would do well to take stock of the situation. Im in an office of engineers...the engineers are much less happy than the engine-drivers....but much more able to get on the train and leave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Great - so do also agree that the train drivers have every right to down tools, singly or working with each other for any reason (or even no reason) any time they like? Top Tip - it's the same principle, that of free association. Yep, of course! As long as the company is likewise: 1. free to find replacement drivers any time it likes who want to work for lower wages. 2. free to layoff or make redundant current train drivers any time it likes, including if it wants to automate all trains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 It seems to me we are at a crossroad. Will the highly skilled people getting paid less than the low skilled train driver decide enough is enough and leave the country, will people be no longer able to commute due to the costs, will people just get sick of being held to ransom by corporations....if the people who dont generate real wealth cant afford things...the game is up. i.e. The game is up. These people would do well to take stock of the situation. Im in an office of engineers...the engineers are much less happy than the engine-drivers....but much more able to get on the train and leave. fair enough - like a lot of troughers under the previous government Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 no - they irrationally reduce the importance of future likelihoods, this is human nature and is a key psychological point of failure in free markets, that happens to be accentuated in the health industry Why do you say this is irrational? You may make a different decision but none of us personally have the rights to defining best decision. yes it is - the more people who can work the richer we are, in a free market, thereby increasing your own financial leverage, enabling you to specialise more and earn more because of that specialisation. Perhaps, but in any case it doesn't matter as it's none of my business to compel other people to make me wealthier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 How can price signals be wrong in a free market? Here's an example of price signals being wrong in a free market: subprime mortgage derivatives being sold with low yields. The reason: informational problems and irrational exuberance. A rational self-interested agent with access to better information would not have willingly bought them. It is possible to overpay for something, even if the price you are paying is the market price. Given the website we are on, I would suggest UK house prices 1997-2011 fit into that category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Why do you say this is irrational? You may make a different decision but none of us personally have the rights to defining best decision. So if your friend started seasoning all his food with plutonium because he liked the taste and didn't believe all the scare stories, you would just shrug your shoulders and leave him to it? You end up in a bit of a wishy washy world if you just start saying everything is subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bogbrush Posted February 28, 2011 Share Posted February 28, 2011 Here's an example of price signals being wrong in a free market: subprime mortgage derivatives being sold with low yields. The reason: informational problems and irrational exuberance. A rational self-interested agent with access to better information would not have willingly bought them. It is possible to overpay for something, even if the price you are paying is the market price. Given the website we are on, I would suggest UK house prices 1997-2011 fit into that category. What's the problem with those things? Guy buys them, guy goes broke because he's bad at his job. Oh he didn't? Was that because of the free market, or because there wasn't one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.