Is this really a "market failure", or just an honestly shitty situation from the point of view of truck drivers (who can't hold out for better working conditions because there are too many other workers who are willing to put up with the status quo)?
> If all carriers simultaneously improved conditions, freight rates would rise to accommodate the costs, and everyone would benefit from lower turnover. But everyone must cooperate to make it work. No carrier can move alone without being destroyed.
If carriers are acting rationally, it must follow that they find the high turnover worthwhile because raising wages sufficiently to reduce turnover would cost more than dealing with driver churn? If carriers were able to band together to force higher freight rates, couldn't they just pocket the higher rates and continue enjoying today's low wages?
Or if carriers are in fact acting irrationally (I know nothing about the trucking industry so I don't know whether this is plausible), that would imply that even under current freight rates, a carrier could improve their situation by paying higher wages, and making it up in reduced recruiting costs and other overhead?
If *workers* could exercise collective action, then they could negotiate better wages / working conditions. And yes, if automation shifts the optimal mix of human labor toward less-shitty work, that could also benefit workers. It would be interesting to see further exploration of how the job of a trucker might evolve as self-driving trucks enter the market.
You write: *If carriers are acting rationally, it must follow that they find the high turnover worthwhile because raising wages sufficiently to reduce turnover would cost more than dealing with driver churn?*
I think this is right; I would imagine per-mile rates have risen to a point of equilibrium with turnover costs, such that turnover costs are less expensive than even a slight increase to per-mile rates. Per your next sentence, this is happening in a buyers' market where sellers (i.e., the trucking companies) can't combine to act collectively, and so have to find a point of equilibrium in an environment with a very low ceiling.
Be careful - using an image of a driverless truck straddling the lane line, unnecessarily in the left (passing) lane, on an empty mountain highway isn't really helpful....
And in the automated truck future, would there be no cab, just a (simpler, cheaper, smaller) motorized tug? And then switch to a cab-with-driver if needed for last-mile operations?
As to what the future will be like, there are all sorts of ways it could go. Automated trucks in 2025 still have a cab for a safety operator and for complex last-mile operations. But then, some robotaxis in 2025 (Zoox’s, for instance) have no human interface at all.
It’s easy to imagine a robotruck like the latter, optimized to carry a standard container that an automated depot can move from one vehicle to another, for the sort of handover you imagine.
Is this really a "market failure", or just an honestly shitty situation from the point of view of truck drivers (who can't hold out for better working conditions because there are too many other workers who are willing to put up with the status quo)?
> If all carriers simultaneously improved conditions, freight rates would rise to accommodate the costs, and everyone would benefit from lower turnover. But everyone must cooperate to make it work. No carrier can move alone without being destroyed.
If carriers are acting rationally, it must follow that they find the high turnover worthwhile because raising wages sufficiently to reduce turnover would cost more than dealing with driver churn? If carriers were able to band together to force higher freight rates, couldn't they just pocket the higher rates and continue enjoying today's low wages?
Or if carriers are in fact acting irrationally (I know nothing about the trucking industry so I don't know whether this is plausible), that would imply that even under current freight rates, a carrier could improve their situation by paying higher wages, and making it up in reduced recruiting costs and other overhead?
If *workers* could exercise collective action, then they could negotiate better wages / working conditions. And yes, if automation shifts the optimal mix of human labor toward less-shitty work, that could also benefit workers. It would be interesting to see further exploration of how the job of a trucker might evolve as self-driving trucks enter the market.
You write: *If carriers are acting rationally, it must follow that they find the high turnover worthwhile because raising wages sufficiently to reduce turnover would cost more than dealing with driver churn?*
I think this is right; I would imagine per-mile rates have risen to a point of equilibrium with turnover costs, such that turnover costs are less expensive than even a slight increase to per-mile rates. Per your next sentence, this is happening in a buyers' market where sellers (i.e., the trucking companies) can't combine to act collectively, and so have to find a point of equilibrium in an environment with a very low ceiling.
Be careful - using an image of a driverless truck straddling the lane line, unnecessarily in the left (passing) lane, on an empty mountain highway isn't really helpful....
And in the automated truck future, would there be no cab, just a (simpler, cheaper, smaller) motorized tug? And then switch to a cab-with-driver if needed for last-mile operations?
Artist’s conception, Steve, artist’s conception…
As to what the future will be like, there are all sorts of ways it could go. Automated trucks in 2025 still have a cab for a safety operator and for complex last-mile operations. But then, some robotaxis in 2025 (Zoox’s, for instance) have no human interface at all.
It’s easy to imagine a robotruck like the latter, optimized to carry a standard container that an automated depot can move from one vehicle to another, for the sort of handover you imagine.