Carryfast:
Rjan:
…You seem to have missed the fact that high fuel costs mean that it’s not worth doing the job at all.
Much better to minimise running time, park up the truck and put the driver to work on ‘other duties’ or don’t even bother to employ the driver to drive the parked truck at all.
So the lose lose situation of the customer just ain’t going to pay to move the stuff at silly fuel cost if they can possibly avoid it.
You seem to be approaching this from the assumption that haulage is one of those “nice to have” services for producers and manufacturers, but which they can do without when the cost of fuel is high.
In reality, farmers (say) are not going “well it’d be nice to get my crops to market, but if fuel is too much then I’ll just leave 'em all in the ground”, because that would mean bankruptcy. The consumer too is not saying “well I’ll eat if the fuel is priced right, otherwise I’ll starve”.
Haulage has costs certainly, but the cost of haulage fuel is only a small proportion of what goods cost, and plays very little part in decisions about production and consumption.
As I say, even totally free fuel would not appreciably change the equation. Consumers are not going to storm the shops because everyday items each cost a penny less than before. Producers are not going to turn their machines to full steam ahead because they’ve suddenly shaved a penny off the sale price.
If they do then where do you think that the operator is going to find the room to make the rate attractive to actually get the work and give the driver a job.
The fact is road fuel duty is a tax on driver’s wages and/or jobs thereby increasing labour supply putting more downward pressure on wages.
Utter rubbish. The “attractiveness” of rates or otherwise does not really determine whether goods get hauled or not. Merely who does it.
The winners obviously being low wage expectation immigrant labour if not low fuel tax alternative options like rail or a air freight.
Resulting in a net loss of tax revenue caused by downward pressure on wages and thereby income tax if not the fuel tax doesn’t get paid regardless.
The ravings of a madman. What makes you think the low-wage migrant, say, will expect any more in wages just because the fuel in the engine is cheaper? Why do you think the boss is going to employ you at higher wages just because the fuel is cheaper, when he could employ the migrant at existing rates and pocket the fuel saving for himself (or use the slack to put in cheaper bids for haulage work, undercutting any other employer that proposes to employ you at higher rates)?
You also seem to have missed my comments regarding why driving trucks is unnattractive to young new drivers.
Zb work in large part caused by punitive restrictions which disincentivise distance work meaning less driving and more ‘other work’ usually labouring of one form or another.
Again rubbish. There is no logical connection between these things.
Road fuel tax also being directly reflected in the driver’s wage potential.
In addition to the arbitrary face fits ‘experience’ issue.
Which as I said is why I’m having to compete for jobs with young drivers moaning about the wage to drive cars for the local garage.But who also rightly see driving trucks as being a mugs game for them so driving cars instead for not much less money is a no brainer.
You moan about competing with anyone, whilst peddling right-wing liberal fantasies about how tax cuts will unleash great jobs for everybody.