A Patron of Economic Update asks: "I would appreciate hearing your thoughts about how this Canadian Truckers movement aligns with the international workers' ...
They're essentially contractors, yes? I've always understood that sort of setup to be a slight of hand "You're now a small business owner! We don't have to give you healthcare anymore :)" This "not working class" is a confusing take proffered around since in my understanding they are engaging in wage-labor and are in the same position they were in (maybe slightly worse!) when they were strictly working-class. Like, are gig workers not working class just because they're technically not employees? People also like dunking on Owner-Operators for their trucks' cost but...it's where they live 151 days out of the year and they only make up 1 in 10 truckers, make median $50k per year, have an average 2008 model truck. Don't know about the specifics of the makeup in this protest though
edit:
Hell, I feel like most working class people wouldn’t be able to afford to go to a fucking convoy to hoot and holler about something like mask and vaccine mandates
Why not? What makes this functionally any different from any other a labor strike?
Sure, what I mean by "functionally different" is lay aside the object of the strike. It feels like some are operating under a "Oh you're striking? That means you can afford to strike. That means that you're not laborers and this isn't a real strike." Which makes it such that there's no such thing as a pure/good strike.
No, owners-operators aren't contractors. They are small business owners or at worst middle class. They own their own capital (truck). They work for multiple people, etc...
50k USD per year net income (so after taxes) is PMC/small business owner easily. Especially in Canada. That's equivalent to a six figure income in Canadian dollars.
It's not a labor strike. The unions are against it. Most workers are against it.
Class is determined by relationship to the means of production, not salary. So we need to establish that owner-operators own those means
Consensus seems to be that truckers' ownership of their own rigs constitute an ownership of the means of production. But given they are combination car, house, tools, what makes them any different than someone who owns a house and car and, say, does AirBNB and Uber+Lyft? Does the latter's ownership of their own capital (car, house) and their working for multiple people mean they're middle class (in current times likely what with affordability, but the question is general)?
I attempted to make clear that I'm not taking a position on the contingent specifics of this protest, rather am asking a general question about how we define these people's class. Looking like I did a bad job :kitty-cri-screm:
AirBNB is just landlordism, so it surely isn't working class.
Uber/Lyft would be non-alienated labour if they dealt directly with clients and didn't have to work on a schedule set by Uber under the threat of being fired while relying on software and organization from a higher authority that cost hundreds of millions to set up. That authority is a sign that the capital that Uber/Lyft has is predominant over the meager capital that a car represents - which they'd likely own anyways.
Now as far as big rigs being capital. I don't think the fact they're being used as house/car is relevant. They have an actual house where they can live in, and another car they use for personal transportation. As far as being tools, yes, that's what capital is. So it neatly does fit the position of capital.
As far as salary, I only mentioned it because you did, I agree it's not particularly relevant.
Okay I see, the crux of my misunderstanding is "predomination." I don't particularly like this soft gradient-cutoff, though. I'd much rather find the hard and fast rule I've been trying to sus out.
Obviously it can't be that "bringing any capital to the job makes you middle class" as (silly example) if you own your clothes (tools) and clothes are required for your job, you would be middle class.
You said one's car in the context of Uber also doesn't meet the middle class threshold because it's a meager node in a dominating system. This would be like the clothes-as-tools example, meager capital.
But I also don't see how the rig can be defined as something that's not also a node in a dominating system, assuming both are discretionary/unscheduled/externally organized.
Then separating that from the rig because it costs 5x more than the car or what have you is a question of degree/gradient, which is given to arbitrary cutoff.
Sure, it's pretty simple to establish that a rig isn't meager capital, while a car is (it's not entirely, either - the car is also capital, it's just that it's a small fraction of the relevant capital and the social relations are still of employment).
You have to ask yourself, what is the constant capital necessary to the job of a trucker? There is the truck, there is the road, and that's it. The load isn't constant capital, because it's perfectly fungible and it's not expended by use. The road is collectively owned, so it can be pushed away, and all that remains is the truck, so an owner operator owns essentially all of the capital necessary for their job.
On the other hand, if you take a ridesharing driver, what is the constant capital? The road, the car, and the ridesharing platform, right? The car itself may be worth 20000$, however not all of it is expended for the ride. Fortunately, we can piece out the depreciation and wear cost per ride, which for Uber with an average distance is around 10km. The cost per km to run a commercial car is around 0.3$/km, of which around 0.13$ is constant capital cost, which is depreciation and maintenance. So we have a car capital cost per ride of 2$ on average. That's on aggregate Uber-round 2 billion dollars of capital expended per year, so we could say in aggregate perhaps 10 billion dollars total. By comparison, Uber cost around 28 billion dollars in investment to build, so certainly there is simply a lot more capital in the ridesharing platform than the actual car.
This reflects the observed social dynamics, of ridesharing providing slightly more autonomy than the average job, but on the balance being essentially the same - in a similar way the car an Uber driver operates is around 1/4 of the total capital their job requires, so they are essentially working class still.
In this case, simply comparing the capital the worker owns to the total capital for their job is a pretty good metric to find which one dominates. Unsurprisingly, if one did actually have the lion's share of the capital, they wouldn't have to let themselves be dominated by a single other entity.
50k USD is only 63k Canadian, lol. A calculator I found online says that'd be ~$88k CAD before tax (in Ontario), which is a pretty normal working class salary if you're in the Toronto area.
To be clear, you're right about it not being left-wing. From what I've seen, most of the "truckers" are just dudes in F-150s. The vaccination rate among Canadian truckers is about the same as the general population (just over 80% IIRC), and a relative who's actually a trucker hates these people.
88k might be a normal working class salary in Toronto, yeah, but it's not really a normal working class salary canadawide. That's more than twice the median employment income in Canada according to the latest census. It's only that much in Toronto because real estate is so hideously expensive. It's also not including the 200 000$ in capital they're building up which isn't included in net income. It's much more in line with the income of a small business owner than with that of a working person across the country.
As far as the rest I definitely agree, so many truckers hate them and their union is against it too.
I think a lot of the people there aren't actually truckers. They're the standard issue F-150 owning business owners who are "in solidarity" or whatever, like in the US. But I haven't actually read anything about the "protest" to confirm that.
Because the protest doesn't represent the trucking industry, it represents the covid deniers.
Around 10% of truckers are unvaxed. Around 10% of Canada is unvaxed. It's more a representation of 10% of Canadians generally than it is 10% of truckers.
No trucking union supports it. Punjabi truckers make up >20% of truckers but are very under-represented in the convoy.
All these people who can afford to park their truck and honk all day are owner-operators because otherwise they wouldn't be able to bring trucks to do nothing useful for that long.
So they also don't represent the truckers who are shit on the most, the ones who don't own their trucks and have the worst conditions.
No one is asking for better trucking conditions in this convoy, even though Canada already had a shortage of truckers because the job itself sucks (driving a long time far from home).
This is a far right protest that's using truckers as a mascot, not a truckers protest.
If there were a lot of anti-vax truckers then they could just stop working and hit supply chains hard, instead of being conspicuously loud and obnoxious only.
They're essentially contractors, yes? I've always understood that sort of setup to be a slight of hand "You're now a small business owner! We don't have to give you healthcare anymore :)" This "not working class" is a confusing take proffered around since in my understanding they are engaging in wage-labor and are in the same position they were in (maybe slightly worse!) when they were strictly working-class. Like, are gig workers not working class just because they're technically not employees? People also like dunking on Owner-Operators for their trucks' cost but...it's where they live 151 days out of the year and they only make up 1 in 10 truckers, make median $50k per year, have an average 2008 model truck. Don't know about the specifics of the makeup in this protest though
edit:
Why not? What makes this functionally any different from
any othera labor strike?they are not protesting for better labor conditions though, just for less concern over thousands of people dying everyday
that seems pertinent to a discussion of whether it is a labor strike IMO
Sure, what I mean by "functionally different" is lay aside the object of the strike. It feels like some are operating under a "Oh you're striking? That means you can afford to strike. That means that you're not laborers and this isn't a real strike." Which makes it such that there's no such thing as a pure/good strike.
Obviously it's not a labor strike
No, owners-operators aren't contractors. They are small business owners or at worst middle class. They own their own capital (truck). They work for multiple people, etc...
50k USD per year net income (so after taxes) is PMC/small business owner easily. Especially in Canada. That's equivalent to a six figure income in Canadian dollars.
It's not a labor strike. The unions are against it. Most workers are against it.
Okay my question here is
I attempted to make clear that I'm not taking a position on the contingent specifics of this protest, rather am asking a general question about how we define these people's class. Looking like I did a bad job :kitty-cri-screm:
AirBNB is just landlordism, so it surely isn't working class.
Uber/Lyft would be non-alienated labour if they dealt directly with clients and didn't have to work on a schedule set by Uber under the threat of being fired while relying on software and organization from a higher authority that cost hundreds of millions to set up. That authority is a sign that the capital that Uber/Lyft has is predominant over the meager capital that a car represents - which they'd likely own anyways.
Now as far as big rigs being capital. I don't think the fact they're being used as house/car is relevant. They have an actual house where they can live in, and another car they use for personal transportation. As far as being tools, yes, that's what capital is. So it neatly does fit the position of capital.
As far as salary, I only mentioned it because you did, I agree it's not particularly relevant.
Okay I see, the crux of my misunderstanding is "predomination." I don't particularly like this soft gradient-cutoff, though. I'd much rather find the hard and fast rule I've been trying to sus out.
Sure, it's pretty simple to establish that a rig isn't meager capital, while a car is (it's not entirely, either - the car is also capital, it's just that it's a small fraction of the relevant capital and the social relations are still of employment).
You have to ask yourself, what is the constant capital necessary to the job of a trucker? There is the truck, there is the road, and that's it. The load isn't constant capital, because it's perfectly fungible and it's not expended by use. The road is collectively owned, so it can be pushed away, and all that remains is the truck, so an owner operator owns essentially all of the capital necessary for their job.
On the other hand, if you take a ridesharing driver, what is the constant capital? The road, the car, and the ridesharing platform, right? The car itself may be worth 20000$, however not all of it is expended for the ride. Fortunately, we can piece out the depreciation and wear cost per ride, which for Uber with an average distance is around 10km. The cost per km to run a commercial car is around 0.3$/km, of which around 0.13$ is constant capital cost, which is depreciation and maintenance. So we have a car capital cost per ride of 2$ on average. That's on aggregate Uber-round 2 billion dollars of capital expended per year, so we could say in aggregate perhaps 10 billion dollars total. By comparison, Uber cost around 28 billion dollars in investment to build, so certainly there is simply a lot more capital in the ridesharing platform than the actual car.
This reflects the observed social dynamics, of ridesharing providing slightly more autonomy than the average job, but on the balance being essentially the same - in a similar way the car an Uber driver operates is around 1/4 of the total capital their job requires, so they are essentially working class still.
In this case, simply comparing the capital the worker owns to the total capital for their job is a pretty good metric to find which one dominates. Unsurprisingly, if one did actually have the lion's share of the capital, they wouldn't have to let themselves be dominated by a single other entity.
Oh my god I love this site, you’re all hella smart.
50k USD is only 63k Canadian, lol. A calculator I found online says that'd be ~$88k CAD before tax (in Ontario), which is a pretty normal working class salary if you're in the Toronto area.
To be clear, you're right about it not being left-wing. From what I've seen, most of the "truckers" are just dudes in F-150s. The vaccination rate among Canadian truckers is about the same as the general population (just over 80% IIRC), and a relative who's actually a trucker hates these people.
88k might be a normal working class salary in Toronto, yeah, but it's not really a normal working class salary canadawide. That's more than twice the median employment income in Canada according to the latest census. It's only that much in Toronto because real estate is so hideously expensive. It's also not including the 200 000$ in capital they're building up which isn't included in net income. It's much more in line with the income of a small business owner than with that of a working person across the country.
As far as the rest I definitely agree, so many truckers hate them and their union is against it too.
I think a lot of the people there aren't actually truckers. They're the standard issue F-150 owning business owners who are "in solidarity" or whatever, like in the US. But I haven't actually read anything about the "protest" to confirm that.
deleted by creator
I don't know enough about the Canadian trucking industry to comment here.
Because the protest doesn't represent the trucking industry, it represents the covid deniers.
Around 10% of truckers are unvaxed. Around 10% of Canada is unvaxed. It's more a representation of 10% of Canadians generally than it is 10% of truckers.
No trucking union supports it. Punjabi truckers make up >20% of truckers but are very under-represented in the convoy.
All these people who can afford to park their truck and honk all day are owner-operators because otherwise they wouldn't be able to bring trucks to do nothing useful for that long.
So they also don't represent the truckers who are shit on the most, the ones who don't own their trucks and have the worst conditions.
No one is asking for better trucking conditions in this convoy, even though Canada already had a shortage of truckers because the job itself sucks (driving a long time far from home).
This is a far right protest that's using truckers as a mascot, not a truckers protest.
If there were a lot of anti-vax truckers then they could just stop working and hit supply chains hard, instead of being conspicuously loud and obnoxious only.
Bingo
I know enough about astroturfed chud shit to be moderately certain