He rode across the country with an owner operator, and he tells the story.
"A true truck has eighteen wheels, or more. From Atlanta and Charlotte to North Powder, Oregon, this was the first time that Ainsworth had so much as tapped his air horn. In three thousand one hundred and ninety miles I rode with him he used it four times. He gave it a light, muted blast to thank a woman in a four-wheeler who helped us make a turn in urban traffic close to our destination, and he used it twice in the Yakima Valley, flirting with a woman who was wearing a bikini. She passed us on I-82, and must have pulled over somewhere, because she passed us again on I-90. She waved both times the horn erupted. She was riding in a convertible and her top was down."
I work for a startup in the trucking space so it's nice to see such an in depth analysis of the industry. I can agree that most of the article is accurate based on what I've seen in my 4 years in the industry. There is so much more innovation going on in the trucking industry that a lot of people don't know about.
My company, Platform Science, is building a configurable open platform that connects a lot of the different categories mentioned in the article (drivers, carriers, brokers, OEMs, software vendors, etc). If you're interested in career opportunities in the trucking industry, we're hiring for a number of open positions[1]. Feel free to send me an email (My work email is in my profile) and I can connect you with the right hiring manager.
This is another piece that I never got to talk about in my post. There's a LOT of software in trucking, the problem is that most of the software was built in a different era.
Platform Science looks pretty cool - seems like a TMS with specific improvements against legacy systems. Building a TMS is a pretty good business - massive fixed cost but once you've built the system, it's fairly hard for competitors to dislodge you.
Super interesting analysis of the trucking market.
A couple of questions would be:
* At what speed is the industry going to embrace self-driving / "augmented driving" in trucks? I'd imagine a driver would still be required at the wheel in case of emergencies for the foreseeable future. What new skills would truckers have to learn?
* Given the environmental impact of trucking (self-driving or not), what are some interesting propositions that climate change startups could come up with? Do any players in the value chain even care about climate impact? Clearly, given the cut-throat nature of the business, there would necessarily need to be a revenue impact otherwise no one is going to use the proposition.
* I find the insurance part more interesting that the factoring part. Given the generally poor service quality of insurance companies, I'm wondering if there is a possibility of a "Lemonade" like insurance company in this space? Lemonade started out as a home insurer I believe. What is the killer proposition for an insurance company in this space?
Lots more thoughts come to mind. Again, great writeup, thanks!
Margins in trucking simply can’t accommodate self driving without the costs of shipping having to go way up. The tech is expensive, we’re probably decades away from true self driving with no minder in the truck on open roads, who the hell knows how the regulatory landscape will shake out, this stuff may never work in bad weather conditions (blocking half the country for half the year). And even with self driving, you still have fuel/charging costs, tires, etc. and someone has to load and unload the truck.
The most likely beachhead will be desert lanes in places with low regulations where the middle mile is autonomous but things are handed off to a real driver for getting to the actual warehouse. That’s complicated/limited use cases/more expensive for the same product. Tough sell.
I work directly in heavy duty trucking tech. Our customers are the biggest fleets in the country. All of them are exploring the tech to not fall behind, but behind closed doors every trucking leader will admit we’re nowhere near operationalizing self driving. Not to mention it’s unclear if the biz model for autonomous trucks is to sell the tech (then who is liable when the robot kills someone?) or to sell trucking capacity, the latter squarely making the autonomy companies competitors of trucking carriers vs vendors. It’s messy as hell.
Self driving is the VR of logistics. “We’re a year away” for the next 25 years is where my bets are being placed.
With all due respect the hubris (and folly) of Silicon Valley pursuing driveless cars and trucks as well as things like uber is astounding.
It will fail in the market because the technology does not exist and will not exist in the foreseeable future unless or until something like AGI is perfected.
Driving is not a closed domain problem. There will always be fat tail circumstances where statistical methods will break down.
Furthermore driving, freight haul and taxicabs are NOT natural monopolies. They are not areas where technology can give enduring market power that society will tolerate (except perhaps in the case of regulatory / institutional capture). Instead they are low margin, established, service- commodity businesses.
The point of trucking is to safely and efficiently get goods from A to B. Until machines / automation can do it cheaper than humans it will not be viable.
There is no shortage of cheap low skilled labor in the USA.
Why invest in hugely expensive automation in an open problem domain that you can not even perfectly model when you can just pay a driver $25 an hour to do it better?
There is so much more easily attainable low hanging hanging fruit.
Why not automate warehouses?
Trains? Waitstaff? Insurance agents? Real estate agents?
Triage nursing?
All these are probably more attainable.
The driverless delusion reeks of sophomoric understanding of the problem domain fueled by credulous media and group think.
Personally I wouldn't hire anybody for a thinking role who believes that driverless trucks or taxis are viable marketable product for the open road. It is a good heuristic to separate critical thinkers from bandwagon riders.
It is literally an easier technical problem to land a man on the moon than to design an autonomous road vehicle that can do better and be more cost effective than humans in all circumstances.
Hopefully we will stop talking about this foolishness in a couple years.
> Driving is not a closed domain problem. There will always be fat tail circumstances where statistical methods will break down.
Some of it is. Walmart has already deployed some self-driving semis in Arkansas that go between a warehouse and a store. There are a significant number of routes like this, always taking the same path back and forth between two places in a relatively controlled environment.
> Why invest in hugely expensive automation in an open problem domain that you can not even perfectly model when you can just pay a driver $25 an hour to do it better?
Driving time is a big one. There are strict limits on how many hours drivers can be driving on a given day. That means you've got a huge, expensive machine sitting idle for most of the day. Self-driving can get you double the usage of an expensive asset.
> It is literally an easier technical problem to land a man on the moon than to design an autonomous road vehicle that can do better and be more cost effective than humans in all circumstance.
Nobody's saying it has to work in all circumstances. You can choose where to deploy self-driving vehicles. If you stick to the American Southwest, you still have an enormous opportunity, but you eliminate one of the big challenges for autonomous vehicles - snow and other difficult weather.
> Driving is not a closed domain problem. There will always be fat tail circumstances where statistical methods will break down.
It doesn’t have to solve all cases to be immensely useful. All it needs is to be able to recognize when it’s unable to safely have control with enough advance notice to delegate to a human.
Remotely piloted aircraft have been a thing for a long time; seems like we could do the same with trucks, so that humans only need to do the driving a small % of the time.
I also suspect that current AI will likely respond to emergency situations better than humans do on average, because they don’t get tired and have superior reaction time.
You can't just dump control to the person sleeping or playing marvel snap in the driver seat as your out. With aircraft there are attentive people on standby and more than one. With remote aircraft people are way less likely to die if something goes wrong. You also start really lowering the training level of humans.
I'll alter one of my favorite jokes to explain.
I want to go out like my Tesla ai did, in a bit of confusion and reanimated from rom, not screaming no no no no like the people in the car.
Tho truly with a lot of these the people will go out in their sleep.
Importantly with aircraft the time you have to correct an error that requires human pilot intervention before you crash is far greater than in a car. This is basic critical thinking... But so many people say we have autopilot why not driverless cars? Well obviously driverless cars are orders of magnitude more sensitive to error conditions on open roads than a plan flying in empty space.
the paren'ts exact same point holds, how long to swap an attentive person in. Have you done support chat? it will immediately be one person to 55 cars, and add in the latency, they're not stopping that tesla move left and hit the breaks issue let alone a 30 car pileup.
I said "All it needs is to be able to recognize when it’s unable to safely have control *with enough advance notice to delegate to a human*"
IMO, there are road conditions where this is possible. For black swan cases like random wind gusts, tire blowouts, boulders falling onto the highway etc. I think AI would be better on average *currently* (again, just clarifying what I already said).
I'm not saying that you attempt FSD with the copout that a driver needs to stay attentive and be ready to intervene. I'm saying that there is a high proportion of truck driving that's completely mindless, and it's possible to have a system that recognizes the difference.
Driverless trucking encompasses a large numbers of usage in between full autonomy everywhere and no autonomy at all.
For example, fully autonomous trucks which only work on highway with special equipment on the side could already be worth it. Long haul drivers can’t drive without stopping, can make mistakes and it’s not a very pleasant job. If you could only use a driver for the last few miles, that’s a huge gain.
You are mistaking a failure of your imagination for an absence of possibilities.
> I'd imagine a driver would still be required at the wheel in case of emergencies for the foreseeable future.
Yes, and manual work for on/off-loading or even paper work is still not uncommon. I can imagine that self-driving on long highways will come as a first step to avoid longer stops (no sleep time required) or to avoid a second driver.
> Clearly, given the cut-throat nature of the business, there would necessarily need to be a revenue impact otherwise no one is going to use the proposition.
I was wondering why route optimization wasn't mentioned in the post. Lot's of innovation happened in the past years. (With "route optimization" I mean both, the route selection between two points and also optimization of the order of multiple stops.)
1 - Oh man, this was one of the questions that was asked by almost every investor. The truth is that no one really knows. My best guess is that we're a decade or more away from true self-driving. Augmented driving might be sooner but trucking is one of the biggest employers in 35 states. Truck drivers are not going to let self/augmented driving eat into their paychecks.
2 - Unfortunately, the margins are too thin for owner operators to have a vested interest in climate. I do think that an interesting distribution strategy for cleaner trucks is to sell heavily into private fleets (e.g. walmart trucking) because there's an ESG angle that the companies can buy into. As for dedicated trucking carriers, it's going to be hard to convince them unless there's some realistic return on investment.
3 - This is interesting, I haven't looked into insurance too much personally and I know the barrier to entry there is extremely high. That being said, I think the liability aspect reduces the viability of offering low-cost insurance. Most trucks are essentially houses on wheels in terms of cost and a single accident can run in the millions.
I'd imagine that if you really wanted to build an insurance company for trucking, you'd need to focus exclusively on mega-fleets (25+ truck carriers) and somehow offer them better rates than legacy insurance companies. While owner operators pay a lot in terms of insurance, the market simply isn't big enough to build a cohesive risk engine and underprice existing insurance without taking on unaccounted risk.
IMHO (and this is just my relatively uninformed opinion), the key driving force here will be the shift to electric trucks. These are more expensive to buy but cheaper to operate. At least right now. And also easier to turn into self driving platforms.
ICE trucks are really hard to operate. You are basically micro managing the gears, dealing with lot of fairly complex bit of equipment, etc. Electric trucks basically have no gears, heaps of torque and don't really require much more than just pointing them in the right direction. Apparently as easy as driving a normal car.
So, electrification strikes me as a core requirement for self driving. And of course electric trucks are also more environmentally friendly. Less brake dust (regenerative braking) and less emissions. And the batteries are recycled at the end of their life. So there's that.
The shift to electric trucks is already happening of course but its very capital intensive. Millions of trucks with a price tag of hundreds of thousands each means a lot of capital will have to be expended. Trillions basically. That alone will ensure it will take quite long to complete. A decade minimum before most new trucks are electric and then at least another decade before most ICE trucks have been retired. And the first generations won't be self driving. So these new trucks would be in service for a decade plus before being swapped out for self driving ones. So, if that takes another decade to happen, we're talking 30-40 years. Minimum. But with the first ones on the road as early as less than a decade from now. It's going to be a slow process.
Insurance is basically about risk. Insurance companies like to minimize risk and maximize profits. An electric truck that is less likely to break down regularly is less risky and would on paper require a lower insurance fee. And then a self driving truck is less likely to get into accidents or other liability related issues. Which again means lower fees. So, that helps.
You seem to me way too optimistic/entusiast on the matter.
Volvo (which is BTW one of the more optimistic companies) is still today excluding long-haul trucks from being fully electric, and they have just started production of short-haul and "regional" electric trucks.
And of course full self-driving is still beyond the horizon.
BTW, and only as a side note, traditional trucks already use engine braking or retarders extensively, so I don't think that regenerative braking will change much when it comes to the amount of brake dust.
It continually boggles my mind that more people aren't interested in hybrids here. There's a company called Hyliion that's been working on this for a while (I have no involvement or investment with them, just interested), and there are likely others as well, but there still doesn't seem to be a lot of uptake or discussion about it.
Hybrids seem to me like a net win all around for at least some use cases. I'm not sure where the value proposition is breaking down (or if anyone's even put in the effort to figure out whether it actually is breaking down).
For long-haul hybrids do make a lot of sense, moving on the highways/out of cities on fuel, then switching to electric when entering them but - isn't there always a but - there is a much simpler solution already available, you use a "normal" truck for the highway, arrive on an exchange parking, leave the trailer that then is brought into the city by a pure electric truck.
Surely there can be particular routes/scenarios where hybrids may offer an advantage, but it is not (at least to me) very clear which ones they are.
I think companies looking to switch to electric trucks are primarily motivated by the lower maintenance/operational cost and lower electricity cost. It's a big investment but over the lifetime of the vehicle it's worth the money. The environmental benefits are a nice plus point of course but not the main thing.
Using a hybrid, you get back a lot of the maintenance hassle and on top of that your fuel is again more expensive. It's basically most of the downsides of an ICE truck without most of the upsides of a full battery electric truck. So, the business case for hybrid trucks is just a lot more murky. I'm sure there will be some companies that will try this but the money is going to be in full battery electric.
I appreciate that perspective, I know many share it.
> you get back a lot of the maintenance hassle and on top of that your fuel is again more expensive
The entire value proposition of hybrids is that they both reduce the amount of required maintenance on the ICE part (plus the brakes) and reduce the amount of fuel needed-- while maintaining all the flexibility of ICE vehicles. As a bonus, they require far fewer batteries than full electrics at a time when battery supply is clearly going to be constrained for the foreseeable future.
Fully electric trucks will have trouble anywhere with long stretches of cold weather. Operating outside of their ideal temperature zone will result in much lower efficiency, exacerbated by the weight of the batteries remaining the same regardless of charge level.
I think there are ideal niches for both approaches. Honestly, I also think most pure ICE drivetrains should be converted over to varying types of hybrids in the long run, because it almost always seems to be a net win to me... but I could be wrong. Would love to see more R&D put into it, in any case.
> The entire value proposition of hybrids is that they both reduce the amount of required maintenance on the ICE part (plus the brakes) ...
Is that a net win? It reduces maintenance on the brakes, it may reduce maintenance on the ICE, and it adds a whole bunch of new stuff to maintain. Does anyone have data on the net effect? Does anyone have data for trucks?
The Prius is still one of the most commonly used vehicles for rideshare & taxis, and I am 100% certain this is due more to long term lower cost of ownership than any other factor. Whether that success can be replicated in large trucks is an open question, but like you I very much want to see more research & data on it.
Tesla just launched a long haul truck with 500 mile range. They are not the only ones targeting long haul. The perpetuating myth here is that this is somehow hard or impossible. The reality is that this is just a matter of including a few extra tonnes of battery and multiple companies have trucks on the road that can do this. Which is what Tesla did. They also have a fairly efficient drive train. And a charging system to top this thing up. Early days but it seems like it's starting to become worth the trouble.
Nikola advertises a battery electric heavy truck with 330 miles of range. Nikola and Volvo seems to still be pretending that they are going to use hydrogen but at the same time they are selling a lot of battery electric at this point and not a whole lot of hydrogen trucks. Mostly ranges are creeping up to the point where drivers must stop to take a break anyway that is long enough to top the battery up. So, the range anxiety argument is simply not there. It's a pure cost driven thing. And it's not like hydrogen fueling is particularly fast or cheap.
Of course, a lot of companies are opting for shorter range trucks because they are much cheaper and because that suits their needs. Long haul electric trucks are more expensive. Because of the extra batteries. So, yes, the sweet spot of the market is short haul, for now. But there's nothing inherently hard about longer range trucks. It's just a cost and supply chain issue. As battery production scales and prices come down further, we'll see more companies dip their toes into long haul.
Self driving is a thing that multiple electric truck and van companies are talking about at this point as something that they want to do. It's still pretty far out but it's not that much harder than self driving cars. But as I said, the bigger challenge here is simply replacing fleets which is an inherently slow process. But of course that's exactly where the money is going to be for manufacturers.
For long range trucks (electric) there could be (in theory) yet another possibility, adding a trailer on the highways.
Not entirely unlike existing multi-trailer (used on some roads in Australia), so called Road Trains, but limited to two trailers, the main one and the battery trailer:
the truck would enter the highway, stop at a service station, add a "powerpack" battery trailer, drive until the next station, swap battery trailer as many times as needed, then leave it at the last service station before destination.
Maybe this is a stupid question but is there any value in trying to put solar panels on the roofs of trucks to offset fuel costs?
Solar panels are (new) around $0.75 / Watt and less than that used. Maybe you could fit 9 or so on the top which, depending on what panels you use, could be about a 1kW or so in sunlight. Maybe it's too much of a stretch to ask for a modified engine but heating the driver cabin or even providing some type of heating or cooling to the container might help offset costs.
Solar powered 'reefer' trailers have been around for a long time, just not economically viable until recently. Dozens of companies showed new designs last year.
> Maybe this is a stupid question but is there any value in trying to put solar panels on the roofs of trucks to offset fuel costs?
The value is lower than putting the solar panels in a desert where they don't shake around and get worn out quicker. Perpetual solar powered auto-mobiles weight almost nothing and are more like three wheel bikes where you lay down. So on a truck it would be bugger all.
That's a lot of extra weight for maybe 9-10kWHr of energy at most (assuming a full day of perfect summertime conditions)... One gallon of diesel fuel contains about 35kWHr of energy.
My first thought is that the differences in energy in what you can collect from an area the size of a trailer and how much energy it takes to move a 40 ton object make the whole thing seem pretty marginal.
My second thought is that even if the math worked out the incentives might not since it's a combination vehicle and each part of the combination is probably owned by a different entity. That's where a government mandate might be needed.
Aren't most trucks actually hauling intermodal containers? The panels would have to be on the containers themselves, and then they could not be stacked.
Intermodal trailers are fairly common but not the majority. Most trailers are box trailers, where the enclosed "container" part is integral with the trailer chassis. Intermodal trailers are used particularly in conjunction with ports and railyards.
Intermodal is actually a relatively small subset of trucking - probably behind generic dry van, reefer, and flatbed.
That being said, solar panels are great but what happens when they break down or get damaged. I don't think the savings are worth the hassle right now.
Has anyone estimated what the impact on the trucking industry would be if the US repealed the Jones Act? Most of America's biggest cities are adjacent to ocean or other waterways, and water transport is cheaper than land transport. So it seems fairly plausible to me that the American trucking industry in its current form is basically just a huge source of excess carbon emissions, created as a result of bad regulation.
I'm not an expert here on water transportation but I think water is very similar to rail. Both are much more cost and energy efficient. But they require large freight volumes and sacrifice a lot of the flexibility that trucking has. Unless we change our supply chain philosophy, trucking will likely reign above all other forms of transportation.
It would be interesting, for sure. Unfortunately, decades of waterway infrastructure neglect would leave a massive gap between where things stand now, and where they would need to be in order to utilize waterway transportation outside of existing facilities. For example - it would enable higher volume transport of commodities (that are currently shipped by river) along rivers, but we don't really have any river-based shipping container ports in existence now. The expansion/creation/upgrades to existing facilities would take time and money, and as the article points out... The trucking industry has managed to externalize those infrastructure costs onto the taxpayer - why would a shipping company lay down that uncertain investment when they have to compete with an industry that doesn't have to do any of that?
Would be really curious for insight into why truck purchase loans run 8-10% APR with 20% down. If anything, I'd expect them to be lower risk and easier to re-posses?
I'd say it's more market conditions over anything else. Truck drivers generally have poor credit - they're not going to be able to come up with ~400k otherwise. As a result, you get lenders that charge more.
Also, repossessing trucks across the country is kinda an issue. You might need to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to claim the truck which is a nightmare that carriers deal with on a daily basis.
Probably because it's a cut throat business and truckers operating on razor thin margins are more likely to default on their loans when they get into trouble. The second hand value of the trucks is not enough to cover that risk. A two year old truck has a value of course, but it's nowhere near the new value of the truck.
Correct! It’s like rent to own homes, when the operator knows the renter will default and won’t take ownership. The profit is the transaction duration.
I’m surprised with how much care went into breaking down the various pieces of the industry, there was zero mention of the Teamsters Union. Nor is there much mention of any of the human issues which lead to things like most trucking companies failing in the first couple of years.
Perhaps looking at trucking from a human centered design perspective would identify problems and needs which are missing from this otherwise deep analysis. What are the pain points of the various types of roles/people involved, what makeshift solutions are they currently using, and do they have money to spend on a better solution?
Author here - there's definitely a lot about trucking that I didn't get to cover. E.g. growth in autonomous vehicles, the issues recruiting drivers, federal regulation, and the lasting impacts of unions.
That being said, human centered design probably doesn't work in trucking. The assumption here is that people within a certain role has a fixed set of pain points. The truth is that trucking is too wide to categorize in that way. E.g. I met dispatchers that had a really hard time finding loads, but others had a really hard time getting drivers to pay them. Every person's experience and pain points in trucking are all slightly different simply due to the nature of the industry.
I think there's certainly an education component to most trucking companies failing but the root of the problem is the design of the industry.
This is an excellent observation. I am working a bit in the marine/rail terminal space (on the software side), it is amazing how much functionality is built specifically to fulfill union contract terms at various terminals.
Truck drivers do a lot more than just sit in the cab and drive.
Sure I guess there are operating models where you don't need one driver paired all the time with one truck but definitely can't just replace drivers IMHO
The fact that truck drivers do more than just drive isn't a necessity though. There is no reason why truck drivers also needs to be an unpaid loaders/unloaders and any other roles currently taking on by them. It's just a matter of "we've always done it like that". Businesses will reorganize themselves if it means a substantial reduction in transport costs.
The $65k (plus/minus bits and pieces) is then consequently also the cap on the additional costs of the self-driving tech and operations per truck. It's not necessarily obvious to me that we'll be there in the next few years.
Also, some of the easy use cases for potential self-driving tech have - at least in the US - already been put on rail which is in a sense almost a self-driving truck. In my view one of the major opportunities missing for making trucking more cost competitive and reducing the societal impact of trucking (emissions, road wear, less than desirable work conditions for truck drivers) is to move more and more freight onto rail. The US is quite good at it actually, but in particular Europe needs to get their act together on it.
That’s what is at stake, but monetization will be less than that valuation because Level 5 autonomy roughly expands capacity 3X (bots don’t sleep), so there likely will be somewhat less monetized value.
Might need to add the capex of equipment costs, and subtract the externalities costs of increases wear and tear on infrastructure and equipment.
You probably have to kind of expect the outcome of successful autonomy and electrification to be 'weird'. We can't really predict what makes sense when we don't know where the costs and capabilities will end up.
The article mentions that a lot of the trucking spot market takes place on load boards (DAT, Truckstop, etc...)
How did the spot market work before the internet/the proliferation of technological devices? Where did the "pool" of owner operators hang out before the internet? Or was trucking completely unlike it is today?
Woah!! They're like tube TVs at the airport but with loads on them? This is so interesting! I wonder how they kept them updated/what systems that ran on
If they were using telephones, then there were people operating call-in centers for this pool of owner operators? If this was pre-90s, probably not even cell phones but, pay phones/physical phones? And if personal/professional connections, then there were meetings where owner operators get together? How would they schedule time for all of this, or coordinate it?
I'm having a hard time picturing either of these methods. It feels hard to have a large spot market of owner operators without some large broker in the middle, at least pre-cellphones.
Yes that’s correct. If you were owner operator you might be aligned with a particular firm (their name on your truck) and their dispatch would find you loads or you would also know people. You could have a dry van and look for generic loads but lots of guys I knew had specialised equipment (flatbed, tanker, etc) and over time you locked in good lanes and repeat customers. I met a tanker driver once who started in Florida, took orange juice to Canada, picked up some food ingredient in Canada , drove it to somewhere in Tennessee then took something from there to Florida. And repeat. He did that triangle for 10 years. Shipping used to be a real people business. If you had an unusual or unexpected load you’d call your 5-10 providers and they might have capacity or not, or do you a favour and call their buddies for you or not. That would almost always work out, if it didn’t you’d call the sales person from the new 3pl or trucking company who had been wanting your business and he/she would move mountains to get that chance. Definitely an interesting industry full of problems to solve. Don’t think it’s the same any more.
Wow! So really just a large mesh network of phone communication then, and you could make some real money _just_ by scraping together a steady, repeating, geographically connected schedule.
"90% of owner operators fail in their first year - trucking is incredibly cutthroat."
Maybe the disruption this market needs is a set of unions rather than just trucking companies.
It would be nice if unions were limited such that... E.G. they could not grow to larger than 15% of the workforce for a sector in any single union. Contracts would need to be approved by... some number, lets say 2/3rds of all workers across all unions. With the 15% number that would require at least 5 unions and over 66% of workers to approve of contracts.
I used to work for Jimmy Haslan, owner of the Flying J truck stops. The guy is a billionaire and hard as nails. I suspect the trucking industry is exactly how he wants it, and anyone making changes is going to have his attention faster than they can react. And, so you know, he is extremely high tech, he also owns multiple state of the art AI companies.
Yes and no. So in both cases the aim is to act as a labour cartel to redistribute economic surplus from either consumers, firms or potential competition to insiders. But US labour law makes co-determination illegal. Having a company approved union is forbidden. Cooperation between firm management and union management is forbidden. Everything must be adversarial all the time. In reality like everything else it’s fractally complex. US unions vary from ones like the UAW that are about money and benefits to journalist unions that are more concerned with ideological correctness. There are states where union shops are legal and there are right to work states. In Europe you have let’s strike at the slightest provocation, all the time countries like France, ones where firm management and union management work hand in glove like Germany and countries where unions are close to dead except for state employees like Ireland or Britain.
> So in both cases the aim is to act as a labour cartel to redistribute economic surplus from either consumers, firms or potential competition to insiders.
After reading that, you can safely ignore any comments for this person regarding European unions. I can guarantee you it’s an American and they have no idea of what they are talking about.
Unions in Europe have little to do with their American counterparts. Membership is never compulsory to begin with. They are just representative of labour for negotiations. Part of their role is actually mandated by the state. For example, minimum salaries for each roles here is set by bilateral agreements between the biggest employers and employees unions.
They play their role fairly well and nearly never strike. Calling them a cartel is beyond ridiculous.
I’m Irish. Having studied Economics does not make me an American. Economic surplus can either go to consumers in the form of lower prices, the firm’s owners in profits or current workers in wages. As
> representative of labour for negotiations
in your words they try to get as much of the economic surplus for themselves as possible. They can do this with a long time horizon like German unions where there’s s consideration that you want the company to still be around in 30 years so your child has the option to work there or American style give me all your money right now short termism.
Cartel isn’t a term of abuse. It’s a description of the entire point of a union. They monopolise labour and negotiate with employers to the benefit of the average worker. The less like the average worker you are the less well they’re going to represent you.
> I’m Irish. Having studied Economics does not make me an American. Economic surplus can either go to consumers in the form of lower prices, the firm’s owners in profits or current workers in wages.
Don’t worry I studied economics too.
You are confusing value added and economic surplus. That doesn’t bode well for the rest of your argument.
A change in labour costs is a shift in the equilibrium point. It doesn’t come from a surplus.
> Cartel isn’t a term of abuse. It’s a description of the entire point of a union. They monopolise labour and negotiate with employers to the benefit of the average worker.
Of course it is a term of abuse.
Collective representation isn’t about monopolising labour as a casual glance to any union in a western country like France would have told you. In France no union has more than a measly 2% of the work force. Yet they play an important role.
I watched this interesting discussion, suffice to say there seem to be a big difference between to two. Roles of the unions seems so vastly different, they might as well use separate words.
There are some interesting podcasts about this recorded by the Bloomberg OddLots team. Interviews with the guy who runs https://www.freightwaves.com/ and at least one actual trucker. Lots of other podcasts recently about global issues affecting logistics
Pet peeve: no matter what you do in a truck someone gets mad.
You’re either driving too fast or too slow. You try to stay in the slow lane but catch up to the person going 45 on the interstate who speeds up as soon as you get next to them trapping you in the fast lane until you give them ‘incentive’ to let you back over.
I could go on and on but my government mandated 30 break was over six minutes ago and there’s people to annoy on the two lane highway I get to drive on until Texas.
People are generally oblivious idiots, but I've also seen some truly insane truck drivers on I-84 in CT, stuff like tailgating people in the left lane at 70+ at night.
I’ve seen countless truly insane car drivers over the years where I honestly thought people were going to die. Some did die.
I’ve also have seen some truck crashes where I’m like “how is that even possible?”
The thing with truck drivers is the bad ones don’t last very long. It’s almost impossible to get another driving job after getting fired for being a shitty driver.
—edit—
And law enforcement holds professional drivers to a higher standard so there’s no talking your way out of a ticket if they see you doing something stupid. Most of the time that’s when they get all up into the logbook and full on level 1 DOT inspection on the truck.
Given the density of the US rail network it's rather more than "last mile", but yes - rail depots are not where you actually want the goods to be in most cases, and you need to do something about that. The question is more whether it would be more efficient to only truck goods as far as the nearest rail freight node and then have it shipped that way rather than via interstate. The article here suggests that's not viable because many vendors are shipping quantities that aren't economically viable given rail freight costs, but doesn't really address why that's the case.
Factoring is very common across sectors with long payment durations. It’s amazing for manufacturing businesses for example who may not get paid for 30, 60 or 90 days after shipping product. The great thing (and where it is nothing like payday loans when done correctly) is that the responsibility and risk of collecting payment falls to the factoring company and not you. We happily factored for years just to offload payment chasing for a tricky customer, well worth the 2%.
There was an interesting sentence in that section. I thought that factors shouldered the non-payment risk but article seems to imply that non-payment would come back and bite the truckers
Yeah, I had to heavily edit the piece to ensure that it wasn't a mini-novella.
So, for more context on factoring, there are two types - recourse and non-recourse. Recourse factoring means that the factoring company can come back and ask the driver for their money back. Generally, the rates for recourse factoring are lower (by 20-50 basis points only because the default rate in drivers is quite high).
Non-recourse factoring is something that the industry is transitioning to. Most of the startups offering factoring today are doing non-recourse. The problem with that approach is that fraud rates rise exponentially. Not too sure how the landscape will look even 6 months from now as easy capital goes away.
The Odd Lots podcast recently did two episodes on US trucking that were interesting. The first with an actual trucker, "The Trucking Episode: Why the Industry Is Such a Mess":
Interesting observations on tracking in that episode:
> Gord: (23:44) […] So they regulate the drivers, right? And there's going to be another book being published next month by an academic at Cornell named Karen Levy, which is called “Data Driven: Truckers, Technology and the New Workplace Surveillance.” And she has spent 10 years studying like the effects of all of the regulatory imposition on the driver through surveillance technology, driver-facing cameras, ELDs, all of this stuff that's meant to regulate us because of the public's fear of, you know, drivers driving tired over their hours, all this stuff, which is an effect of the fact that the market's been pummeled by deregulation. So there's this regulation question, but it's not looked at correctly, that they've deregulated the market, but they just moved the regulation from the operations of the companies and the rating and the business side of it, and they've moved all the regulation onto the operations and onto the driver, which is another reason people wash out.
> Because if you're somebody like me who's been in the business my entire life, my dad was a trucker, both my uncles were truckers, my grandpa was a trucker. I was helping mechanics fix trucks and driving around when I was a teenager after school. And I'm one of the sort of last of the big game hunters. I know what I'm doing. If somebody is a professional and knows what they're doing, they don't want to be told how to do their job by some human resources harridan, or a health and safety pencil neck person that's breathing down their neck. And that's a factor.
> Another thing, and this applies to more than just trucking, is like the psychology of people who work for a living. Most people that work for a living just want to do their jobs and be left alone. And we have this management mentality where like every single thing has to be done exactly as the computer models tell us and as safe as possible. And they're trying to impose theory on material reality and it drives the people actually doing the work insane. So, you know, you want to end driver churn and driver retention? One of the factors causing that is that they've overregulated the people doing the work rather than the people in charge of the markets in which the work is being done. Does that make any sense?
> Joe: (27:20) Yeah, and that's an incredible point, and I hadn't really thought about this before, this idea that it’s like, okay, the business of trucking, the business of pay, etc., [it’s] increasingly deregulated even as more burden gets shifted to the driver in the truck and the idea of monitoring. And so essentially sort of redistributing the imposition of where the regulation happens. […]
And just in the last week or so a second episode, "What Truckers Already Know About the Future of Electronic Worker Surveillance", with a researcher that just published a book on the industry:
> Long-haul truckers are the backbone of the American economy, transporting goods under grueling conditions and immense economic pressure. Truckers have long valued the day-to-day independence of their work, sharing a strong occupational identity rooted in a tradition of autonomy. Yet these workers increasingly find themselves under many watchful eyes. Data Driven examines how digital surveillance is upending life and work on the open road, and raises crucial questions about the role of data collection in broader systems of social control.
I regularly drive semi-long distances on the interstate. There has been a huge turnover in big truck drivers over the last 5-10 years. One used to be able to trust that in any situation, truck drivers would take the safe reasonable action. I observe that not to be the case now, and I really don't think it's because of my advancing age.
I have sympathy for anyone who spends all day locked in a cab with a robot that's always ready to punish for infractions. From the outside it appears that the robot cares about profit, not about safety.
I actually had some figures around energy impact in earlier drafts of the piece. The issue I kept running into was the range of data - trucking is more inefficient than rail. But the question is how much, it could be as little as 2x more energy or as much as 100x more energy.
It depends on factors like load weight, truck conditions, rail route, and a bunch more.
He rode across the country with an owner operator, and he tells the story.
"A true truck has eighteen wheels, or more. From Atlanta and Charlotte to North Powder, Oregon, this was the first time that Ainsworth had so much as tapped his air horn. In three thousand one hundred and ninety miles I rode with him he used it four times. He gave it a light, muted blast to thank a woman in a four-wheeler who helped us make a turn in urban traffic close to our destination, and he used it twice in the Yakima Valley, flirting with a woman who was wearing a bikini. She passed us on I-82, and must have pulled over somewhere, because she passed us again on I-90. She waved both times the horn erupted. She was riding in a convertible and her top was down."