Euclid Lithonia Operator So let's just stick to trains. So why do you think rail carloadings are continuing to slump?
Lithonia Operator So let's just stick to trains.
So why do you think rail carloadings are continuing to slump?
I don't have any particlar insight into why this is. Mostly this is above my pay grade.
But from what I read here and elsewhere, "Precision Scheduled Railroading" (I put this in quotes because it is so hypey/silly) seems mainly to be a way to squeeze short-term gains from the railroads primarily by laying off workers. Generalizing here, Class 1 roads seem to want only unit trains; grabbing boxcars off of sidings here and there is too labor-intensive. If you get out of the single-carload (or small cut) business, then you have less carloadings. So that's some of it.
Also, it seems that the railroads are simply not tending their gardens. Service is not great. So people get a truck.
Lithonia Operator Euclid Lithonia Operator So let's just stick to trains. So why do you think rail carloadings are continuing to slump? I don't have any particlar insight into why this is. Mostly this is above my pay grade. But from what I read here and elsewhere, "Precision Scheduled Railroading" (I put this in quotes because it is so hypey/silly) seems mainly to be a way to squeeze short-term gains from the railroads primarily by laying off workers. Generalizing here, Class 1 roads seem to want only unit trains; grabbing boxcars off of sidings here and there is too labor-intensive. If you get out of the single-carload (or small cut) business, then you have less carloadings. So that's some of it. Also, it seems that the railroads are simply not tending their gardens. Service is not great. So people get a truck.
Does anyone seriously think the slowing economy isn't the primary factor in slumping carloadings?
Euclid,
I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general.
I have more respect for a guy that can bring a long train down a steep grade than I do for a guy who got a hot stock tip and had cash to gamble. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong.
EuclidDo you think it is possible that some of the layoffs are for long term gains for the good of the company and not just short term gains?
Anyone left? No? There you go, Euclid: your perfect railroad. just like the toy train in your parents' basement.
EuclidDo you have an anger problem?
Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I have more respect for a guy that can bring a long train down a steep grade than I do for a guy who got a hot stock tip and had cash to gamble. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong.
That's the stakeholder concept some propose to save the free market system. But it would require a major structural change that would encounter severe resistance.
charlie hebdo Does anyone seriously think the slowing economy isn't the primary factor in slumping carloadingd?
Does anyone seriously think the slowing economy isn't the primary factor in slumping carloadingd?
Yes, I do. The world wide economy seems to be slowing, not just ours.
I'm sure there are customers who are switching to trucks because the railroads (PSR or not) don't really want or care about their business. But the drop off is bigger than that. Besides, I think that while PSR might drive off some business, it's biggest hinderance is making it harder to justify adding new business. New business may bring in more money, but it might also raise the OR doing it. They don't want that.
One local bright spot. The last couple of days I've seen M-O-W replacing some ties on a spur track that hasn't been used by the ag industry next to it for quite a few years. The last use was bringing in ag chemicals in tank cars. It looks like that might start up again. When I first hired out, 21 years ago today, they still loaded grain in 25 car blocks. I don't expect that to happen. Both facilities are part of a large regional Co-Op that has larger grain loading facilities nearby.
Jeff
zardoz Euclid Do you think it is possible that some of the layoffs are for long term gains for the good of the company and not just short term gains? You might be right; after all, who needs all them pesky employees; you know, those that do actual work? The tracks will fix themselves.The locomotives will never need service.Signals? Who needs 'em? Dispatchers? Nah. The drivers can just follow the crumbling rails.Conductors? Nope--no switches will need throwing.Engineers? Not with Trip Optimizer.Trainmasters/Travelling Engineers? Not them either--no one left to supervise.Clerks? The computer will do it all. Anyone left? No? There you go, Euclid: your perfect railroad. just like the toy train in your parents' basement.
Euclid Do you think it is possible that some of the layoffs are for long term gains for the good of the company and not just short term gains?
You might be right; after all, who needs all them pesky employees; you know, those that do actual work? The tracks will fix themselves.The locomotives will never need service.Signals? Who needs 'em? Dispatchers? Nah. The drivers can just follow the crumbling rails.Conductors? Nope--no switches will need throwing.Engineers? Not with Trip Optimizer.Trainmasters/Travelling Engineers? Not them either--no one left to supervise.Clerks? The computer will do it all.
Euc's perfect railroad is actually an ATM - CEO comes in, goes to the excruciating physical labor of pushing a button and all the machine does electronically transfer funds to the company's account - until he exercises his second excruciating act of physical labor - pushing the button again and going home.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Railroads have been laying off employees that were made unecessary due to technological advancements since the beginning. Were these layoffs not justified? I never claimed that all employees are unecessary. But there are always some that become unecessary as things move forward.
Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong.
I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong.
The people who work at companies get wages for their effort. Is that not fair enough? What other responsibilities to you think companies have toward their employees besides paying them to work?
Don't companies get to decide how much to pay their executives? If laying off workers while paying large salaries to CEOs is wrong, what needs to be done about it?
Be it right or wrong or smart or not, I think the big companies are all about reducing head count. Smaller to medium sized companies are where employment growth lies.
At the same time, the nature of work is changing. Just as in past transcending shifts. Not much need for foragers and their skills when agriculture developed. Fewer farmers needed when mechanization came on the scene. Now it’s information/knowledge technology. Learning how to harness it.
Euclid Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong. The people who work at companies get wages for their effort. Is that not fair enough? What other responsibilities to you think companies have toward their employees besides paying them to work? Don't companies get to decide how much to pay their executives? If laying off workers while paying large salaries to CEOs is wrong, what needs to be done about it?
You make good points, but I would answer your questions with another question: what's going to happen when technology continues its inevitable march forward and the only employment available is a few well-remunerated jobs for the very best and brightest and those with connections, and relatively few low-wage service jobs for everyone else?
The future of capitalism depends on the answer to that question, because if it's not addressed, that vast cohort of people who are left out of the economy completely will revolt at some point in the future and the end result will likely be some form of command economy. We're going to have to find a way to keep people gainfully employed and with a reason to get out of bed in the morning, rather than sacrificing everything at the altar of efficiency and profits.
As I have said before, I could see paring train crews down from 5 to 2 people, but running 150+ car trains and gumming up the rail network to cut a few more people and some equipment out of the equation seems insane to me, and an example of the kind of corporate behavior that's going to undermine the entire capitalist system at some point.
Lithonia Operator Let me get this straight. If a thread contains discussion of antique aircraft the moderators swing into action. But if specifically-forbidden political content drones on for page after page, the moderators nap?
Let me get this straight. If a thread contains discussion of antique aircraft the moderators swing into action. But if specifically-forbidden political content drones on for page after page, the moderators nap?
As others have said, it's impossible to exclude politics completely from these discussions. What we can do is refrain from using inflammatory rhetoric. I was guilty of that myself, and I apologized for it.
If that was the case, trucking would be doing great. It doesn't seem to be the case.
https://www.truckinginfo.com/336158/is-trucking-in-the-midst-of-a-freight-recession
"In ACT Research’s Freight Forecast for July, the firm affirmed its view that trucking is in the midst of a freight recession, forecasting that truckload and intermodal contract rates would fall this year due to overcapacity and weak freight demand. In turn, overcapacity is expected to give shippers the upper hand in rate negotiations."
An "expensive model collector"
From https://www.aar.org/news/rail-traffic-for-the-week-ending-october-19-2019/ :
For this week, total U.S. weekly rail traffic was 507,381 carloads and intermodal units, down 8.6 percent compared with the same week last year.
Total carloads for the week ending October 19 were 245,002 carloads, down 7.8 percent compared with the same week in 2018, while U.S. weekly intermodal volume was 262,379 containers and trailers, down 9.3 percent compared to 2018.
Psychot Euclid Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong. The people who work at companies get wages for their effort. Is that not fair enough? What other responsibilities to you think companies have toward their employees besides paying them to work? Don't companies get to decide how much to pay their executives? If laying off workers while paying large salaries to CEOs is wrong, what needs to be done about it? You make good points, but I would answer your questions with another question: what's going to happen when technology continues its inevitable march forward and the only employment available is a few well-remunerated jobs for the very best and brightest and those with connections, and relatively few low-wage service jobs for everyone else? The future of capitalism depends on the answer to that question, because if it's not addressed, that vast cohort of people who are left out of the economy completely will revolt at some point in the future and the end result will likely be some form of command economy. We're going to have to find a way to keep people gainfully employed and with a reason to get out of bed in the morning, rather than sacrificing everything at the altar of efficiency and profits. As I have said before, I could see paring train crews down from 5 to 2 people, but running 150+ car trains and gumming up the rail network to cut a few more people and some equipment out of the equation seems insane to me, and an example of the kind of corporate behavior that's going to undermine the entire capitalist system at some point.
Yes, the capitalist system is always in danger of being undermined, and I am not comfortable about losing our manufacturing base and seeing the quality disappear from all consumer products. Not all decisions made in the capitalist system are good, but what defines it is the freedom to make those decisisons.
One of those decisions is where to cut costs. Businesses don't exist to make employees comfortable and secure throughout their lives. They might offer some of that enticement, but they are not required to. Requiring it is not part of the capitalist system. It is part of another system.
Good comment. And other systems have other ways of removing one's livelyhood and ability to support a family.
And the USA does not have a pure capitalistic system anyway. There are unions, and many federal, state, and local laws and regulations that limit management's freedom.
Democracy is poor and troublesome form of government. Until you compare it with all other forms of government that Humanity has tried.
The same can be said for Capitalism as an economic system.
charlie hebdo Does anyone seriously think the slowing economy isn't the primary factor in slumping carloadings?
I think it is the primary factor. Economic prosperity comes and goes in waves. The waves seem to have causes, but understanding the cause is always uncertain. The people who know the causes best can see the waves coming, but they are often reluctant to sound warnings because warnings change beliefs. And changing beliefs can be part of the cause. There are also many who want to change those beliefs because they have a self-interest in doing so.
I keep hearing that the economy is roaring. You can always tell if an economy is successful if you can hear it roar. Recessions are serious trouble. If you are comfortably employed through it, you don't experience the recession. If you are a business or self-employed, recessions are like losing a limb. Quite a problem at the time, but you get through it and life goes on.
Whatever is happening now does not seem to be have a cause that is widely agreed on yet. I think we will soon learn a lot more as the Christmas season comes and goes and we get a few months further into this.
And as the election cycle continues to amp up there will be no shortage of opinion, rhetoric, and "analysis" from politicians and media!
An interesting thing about economic statistics. You can read them all day, but all that matters to probably 85% of people are their personal economies, and, to some extent those of their friends and extended family. If you are doing well/poorly, that's your economy, and the rest is noise.
Paul_D_North_Jr From https://www.aar.org/news/rail-traffic-for-the-week-ending-october-19-2019/ : For this week, total U.S. weekly rail traffic was 507,381 carloads and intermodal units, down 8.6 percent compared with the same week last year. Total carloads for the week ending October 19 were 245,002 carloads, down 7.8 percent compared with the same week in 2018, while U.S. weekly intermodal volume was 262,379 containers and trailers, down 9.3 percent compared to 2018.
Thanks Paul. Pretty clear evidence of slowdown and the impact of trade interference.
Thanks Paul .. Not showing OCT in the graph yet, but you can see the trend.
I wonder what the impact of the GM strike will be as well.
Euclid Psychot Euclid Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong. The people who work at companies get wages for their effort. Is that not fair enough? What other responsibilities to you think companies have toward their employees besides paying them to work? Don't companies get to decide how much to pay their executives? If laying off workers while paying large salaries to CEOs is wrong, what needs to be done about it? You make good points, but I would answer your questions with another question: what's going to happen when technology continues its inevitable march forward and the only employment available is a few well-remunerated jobs for the very best and brightest and those with connections, and relatively few low-wage service jobs for everyone else? The future of capitalism depends on the answer to that question, because if it's not addressed, that vast cohort of people who are left out of the economy completely will revolt at some point in the future and the end result will likely be some form of command economy. We're going to have to find a way to keep people gainfully employed and with a reason to get out of bed in the morning, rather than sacrificing everything at the altar of efficiency and profits. As I have said before, I could see paring train crews down from 5 to 2 people, but running 150+ car trains and gumming up the rail network to cut a few more people and some equipment out of the equation seems insane to me, and an example of the kind of corporate behavior that's going to undermine the entire capitalist system at some point. Yes, the capitalist system is always in danger of being undermined, and I am not comfortable about losing our manufacturing base and seeing the quality disappear from all consumer products. Not all decisions made in the capitalist system are good, but what defines it is the freedom to make those decisisons. One of those decisions is where to cut costs. Businesses don't exist to make employees comfortable and secure throughout their lives. They might offer some of that enticement, but they are not required to. Requiring it is not part of the capitalist system. It is part of another system.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but the question remains: will capitalism still be viable as a system if, say, 50% of the population is unemployed as a result of technological advances and the constant drive for greater efficiency and profits? If not, what can we do about it?
My problem isn't with capitalism itself, but rather with the possible consequences of technology's effects on it. Freedom to make decisions is great, but if the whole system comes crashing down, that won't do anyone any good.
PsychotI don't pretend to have the answer, but the question remains: will capitalism still be viable as a system if, say, 50% of the population is unemployed as a result of technological advances and the constant drive for greater efficiency and profits? If not, what can we do about it? My problem isn't with capitalism itself, but rather with the possible consequences of technology's effects on it. Freedom to make decisions is great, but if the whole system comes crashing down, that won't do anyone any good.
To your first pargraph, I would say that the answer to your question as to whether capitalism remains viable depends on what the 50% who are unemployed believe. If they blame their plight on capitalism, they might believe in a solution that will fail them. Striving for greater effiiency and profit is the cure, not the disease.
The Chinese are not competing in the world as Communists, they are competing as government supported Capitalists!
I totally believe in capitalism. But to me it's like alcohol: it's fine in moderation.
But when some are drunk on profits while others are getting laid off to pay for the binge, it's time for some restraint.
IMO, things are out of whack. Out of proportion.
(I totally believe in drinking, also.)
Lithonia Operator I totally believe in capitalism. But to me it's like alcohol: it's fine in moderation. But when some are drunk on profits while others are getting laid off to pay for the binge, it's time for some restraint.
I believe that is a distorted view on the part of people who lose their jobs. Nobody is obligated to pay empolyees if they don't need their service.
When you say it is time for restraint, what kind of restraint do you think would be justified? Who would apply the restraint?
EuclidNobody is obligated to pay empolyees if they don't need their service.
This is the most fundamental concept to staying employed and I wish it was taught in junior high school or high school. Nobody is entitled to a job. Everyone would have a job if they took the above to heart. I have been layed off at least 4 times in my IT career and in every case it had zero to do with performance of me but rather performance of the company. In two cases the company went out of business. In two others the company is still around but changed it's line of business to exclude my current skillset in IT.
I easily obtained employment again in three cases with a raise but one with a cut in salary........in just 4-5 months time. Age didn't matter. What mattered was were my skills current and marketable. Cheap to keep a skillset marketable. However, very expensive to fix a neglected skill set that has faded away over the years. Really it is up to the individual to stay marketable in their fields it is not the employers responsibility to keep you marketable. In every case where I see people who cannot find work in 4-5 months or less, it's always the case where they are trying to embellish a skillset that is not competitive for the position they are applying for. They all have the chance to ask the recruiter or HR person why they were not the best person for the job AND many even fail to do that. That feedback is very valuable to fix the issue and get employed again. You would think it would be on the top of all questions to ask after a rejection. It is not asked by a lot of job applicants after a rejection, instead they try to fill the gap of knowledge via rumor or lack of self confidence.
Yes. Average CEO to average worker compensation is 221/278:1. By contrast, it was 20:1 in 1965. Wonder where the middle class went? Look no further.
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
charlie hebdo Yes. Average CEO to average worker compensation is 221/278:1. By contrast, it was 20:1 in 1965. Wonder where the middle class went? Look no further. https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
Are you saying ranging from 221 to 278? (To 1) In any event I agree. The disparity has gotten totally out of hand.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.