# Who collects the trash in Galt's Gulch? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 17, 2014, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569 "2014-02-17T23:54:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/221 "2014-02-20T07:25:27Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You shitting me? Hell, I even read _Anthem_! In libraries, its usually shelved with science fiction, but the other books try to shrink away. [And it gets worse . . .](https://xkcd.com/1049/) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/222 "2014-02-20T07:27:43Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > but, who collects the thrash Thrash-metal artists. With whom (based on her esthetic preferences as expressed in _The Fountainhead)_ Rand would have been utterly disgusted. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/223 "2014-02-20T07:29:55Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Thrash-metal artists. With whom (based on her esthetic preferences as expressed in _The Fountainhead)_ Rand would have been utterly disgusted. lol ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/224 "2014-02-20T07:54:38Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > ok > > so what happens if i dump all my trash on the property line next to your house? > [@Robert163](#): > > so what yo are saying is that the only way for the ideals in her book to work is to be held in a pretend world where everyone acts perfectly? Between these two quotes you seem to be saying that the “real” world is one in which we grovel before those who will use extortion to force us to take out their trash. I don’t mean to be rude, so I’ll ask the question straight up. Do you feel that the person who refuses to take out their trash should have more power than the person who does? If you believe that the person who doesn’t want to take out their trash is acting in bad faith and their actions should not be rewarded, then the book is a thought experiment as to what would happen if a group of people got the balls to actually enforce the ideal. If you feel that the person who refuses to take out their trash should be rewarded, then I ask, why? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/225 "2014-02-20T08:01:31Z")
> [@sitchensis](#): > > Between these two quotes you seem to be saying that the “real” world is one in which we grovel before those who will use extortion to force us to take out their trash. > > I don’t mean to be rude, so I’ll ask the question straight up. Do you feel that the person who refuses to take out their trash should have more power than the person who does? > > If you believe that the person who doesn’t want to take out their trash is acting in bad faith and their actions should not be rewarded, then the book is a thought experiment as to what would happen if a group of people got the balls to actually enforce the ideal. > > If you feel that the person who refuses to take out their trash should be rewarded, then I ask, why? whats with all this “who should be forced to” stuff. you dont like taxes. you dont like regulation. got it. you have a problem with moochers and people of less ability making you kowtow. ok. that wasn’t the point. my point is that leaving your trash about or similar forms of laziness or indifference is rude and a bad way to live. but in a society with no power to regulate such civil matters, what happens? nothing? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/226 "2014-02-20T08:29:42Z")
By the way, though John Galt started the strike, he did not own the Gulch. Midas Mulligan, the banker, owned it. And the others either bought land from him or rented. > [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > A better question would be: where do they put the trash in Galt’s Gulch? You have to be careful of property rights, you can’t just establish a dump next to someone’s house and expect them to live with the smell. My guess would be that some entrepreneur would discover recycling and would burn the rest cleanly for energy. Do you think John Galt just rested on his laurels after inventing a machine that got power from static electricity? His second invention was a machine that took trash and converted it back into static electricity. The world’s first true perpetual-motion system. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, she made exactly the amount that the market (free or not or somewhere in-between, depending on your assessment of the US’s market) “let” her. But I think friend **Chimera** is grossly misinformed about the amount of money Ayn Rand made during her life. _Atlas Shrugged_ sold like crazy, as did _The Fountainhead_. If you think she didn’t get “rich” off those two books alone I’ve got a bridge just north of where I live that you surely will be interested in. She obviously did make a lot from her writing, including her non-fiction and speaking engagements. But she didn’t believe in investing; she just put her money in the bank, and it was eaten up by inflation. Even Alan Greenspan couldn’t get her to invest. This was a fairly common attitude in her generation. My father was exactly the same, and he died with only a fraction of net worth he should have had. And over the years, she paid a bazillion dollars in taxes. But even if she had lived to be 100, she was virtually guaranteed a fortune in royalties every year. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Let’s say she had not become rich. Would that be hilarious, in the sense that it would somehow brand her as a failure? I mean, there certainly was a time when she was very poor. Was she a failure then, but only was “valuable” when she published a best seller. Right. Howard Roark in the quarry and John Galt on the railroad tracks. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > _ **First. let me admit I haven’t read the book. I’m basing this on what I’ve read about it second hand.** _ > > That’s the central flaw in Rand’s economic view. According to her ideology, people like Reardon are wholly responsible for making steel. The workers failed to appreciate that they owed everything to Reardon. > > When push came to shove, Reardon and his peers went away and set up their own society. And Rand claimed that without Reardon and the people like him, the workers were unable to function - their society collapsed. But Reardon and the owners were able to have a completely functional society without any workers. That seems pretty implausible. It seems a lot more believable that Readon and his peers would have found they needed their workers just as much as their workers needed them and neither could build a self-sustaining economy without the other. You really need to read the book, before pretending to know what’s in it. Rearden had immense respect for his workers, and paid them more than his competitors did. And they considered it a privilege to work for him. And Rearden had nothing to do with setting up the Gulch. In fact he was the second-last person to go on strike. Those of you who did read the book might remember one of its most eloquent lines: “I HAVE MET HIM. I DON’T BLAME YOU.” > [@Lobohan](#): > > I assume I agree with her on many things. Such as the cuteness of puppies and the God-damn tastiness of an Oreo cookie. No, cats and Godiva truffles. > [@Lobohan](#): > > She’s against charity and for allowing the rich to keep their money. I take from that that her followers think that both groups deserve where they’re at. > > Please feel free to enlighten me. Rand herself was very charitable, especially for struggling (but deserving) young people. Hope that enlightens you. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > How is the secret kept if someone hears the proposal, but says “No.”? Dagny said “No.” But when she left, she was prevented from knowing the location. > [@Robert163](#): > > we are talking about the book where all the really talented people moved to a secret town of their own so all the takers and leeches would quit dragging them down, right? Wrong. You don’t have to be “really talented” to be rational and productive. There was a truck driver in Galt’s Gulch, who was working toward the day when he was no longer just a truck driver. There may also have been other truck drivers there, who had less potential and were happy doing it. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > My point is that you don’t have to read everything Marx wrote to spot the flaws in communism. And you don’t have to read everything Rand wrote in order to spot the flaws in objectivism. Except that everything you “know” about her isn’t from her at all, but second (or tenth- or hundredth-) hand. If you feel that strongly about her, at least read her books so you’ll know what the hell you’re talking about. > [@Algher](#): > > As for Rand - it isn’t her estate value, it is her annual income that would be interesting to me. For all I know she was eating fine caviar every night, alongside a bottle of Silver Oak. Again, Godiva truffles (which she insisted on calling \*Lady \*Godiva truffles). > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > So, if I’m a lazy moocher with no marketable skills or talents, but I accept Objectivism in principle, I can join; but, since the rules prohibit anyone from giving me a handout, I probably won’t stay long. Is that correct? No. Nobody was given a polygraph test to ascertain what philosophy they accept. They were judged by their actions. And there’s no rule against giving anyone a handout. Regarding charity in a free society, Rand said “If I want to help them no one will have the right to stop me.” And if you really are a lazy moocher, who are you gonna mooch from? Moochers can only succeed in the context of a system that rewards them. Otherwise they’re SOL. This is what Rand called “the sanction of the victim.” Oh, and to address the OP: Who cleans out the pig sty in _Animal Farm_? ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/227 "2014-02-20T08:32:09Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > whats with all this “who should be forced to” stuff. you dont like taxes. you dont like regulation. got it. you have a problem with moochers and people of less ability making you kowtow. ok. that wasn’t the point. > > my point is that leaving your trash about or similar forms of laziness or indifference is rude and a bad way to live. but in a society with no power to regulate such civil matters, what happens? nothing? Actually I’m very liberal when it comes to taxes and regulation, but I’ve also read the book. > [@Robert163](#): > > ok > > so what happens if i dump all my trash on the property line next to your house? This quote is a threat (within the discussion:)). It is used to force me to do something at the expense of suffering some ill, be it happiness, standard of living, or garbage on my land… Should the person who poses that threat have more power in society then me? Does that threat constituted some ability that I’m not seeing? You concede that that activity is “rude and a bad way to live” but do you support your ideal through action. Do you cut that “rude” person off, or do you tax people who are not as “rude” to clean up after that “rude” person’s behavior. That’s the whole point of the book. At what point is it just “rude and a bad way to live”, or at what point do you concede that the bad outweighs the good. That the threats and the effort it takes to avoid them become too much for the good people who support the others. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/228 "2014-02-20T08:32:20Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > my point is that leaving your trash about or similar forms of laziness or indifference is rude and a bad way to live. but in a society with no power to regulate such civil matters, what happens? nothing? Where are you getting, to paraphrase, “no power to regulate civil matters”? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/229 "2014-02-20T08:46:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Where are you getting, to paraphrase, “no power to regulate civil matters”? Oh, so they have regulations? Which ones? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/230 "2014-02-20T08:46:27Z")
> [@sitchensis](#): > > Should the person who poses that threat have more power in society then me? Does that threat constituted some ability that I’m not seeing? what? seriously, what??? how does regulating things like trash or pollution or the maintenance of roads, etc, give anyone power over you? in the absence of regulation it is a power struggle between your neighbor and you. with proper regulation it is a power struggle between your neighbor and local government. > [@](#): > > You concede that that activity is “rude and a bad way to live” but do you support your ideal through action. Do you cut that “rude” person off, or do you tax people who are not as “rude” to clean up after that “rude” person’s behavior. yes, you have to tax people in order to have police, and building inspectors and restaurant inspectors and dog catchers and all manner of similar necessities. of course, if you want to save on taxes by not having a dog catcher, don’t complain when a stray dog bites your child and sends them to the hospital. > [@](#): > > That’s the whole point of the book. At what point is it just “rude and a bad way to live”, or at what point do you concede that the bad outweighs the good. That the threats and the effort it takes to avoid them become too much for the good people who support the others. more regulation than less. a neighborhood where all the fences must be of an exact height and people must mow their lawns and no trash or abandoned car parts can be left in the front yard, that is not ideal, but, it’s better than the polar opposite where trash and car parts are all over the yard in poor blue collar neighborhoods. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/231 "2014-02-20T08:47:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Where are you getting, to paraphrase, “no power to regulate civil matters”? from my understanding, libertarians don’t want any regulation on any level of government or at least very very very little. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/232 "2014-02-20T09:12:36Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > But, what is there in Galt’s Gulch to prevent trash workers from unionizing? It’s something they’re free to do, isn’t it? Collective bargaining is just another form of negotiation-in-the-marketplace. They are indeed free to Unionise. What they can not do is force anybody to _join_ their Union. If the Garbage Collectors union goes on strike, then anybody at all can take up the slack. I could, for example, enter into a contract with the Union’s existing customers to start collecting garbage immediately at the rate as the union was getting, on a 10 year contract. And the customers can add a clause that says I can’t hire any Union members because they don;t want a repeat of these shenanigans. So the union had better be damn sure that the customers think they are worth what they are demanding. Because if they don’t, the customers will simply pay someone else, and all the Union members are out of a job. In the real world, strikes only work when the Union has a monopoly sanctioned by the government, or obtained through threat of violence. In an Objectivist world neither are possible. in such a world, a strike is very likely to be indistinguishable from a resignation. Unionists say they aren’t turning up to work today, customers say don’t turn up tomorrow either. The only time a strike could work in an Objectivist world is as a reminder for customers who have come to take services for granted. This wouldn’t happen often. At any other time, striking will only serve to produce bad blood and prove the unreliability of the Union, weakening their negotiating position. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/233 "2014-02-20T09:15:41Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > They are indeed free to Unionise. > > What they can not do is force anybody to _join_ their Union. If the Garbage Collectors union goes on strike, then anybody at all can take up the slack. I could, for example, enter into a contract with the Union’s existing customers to start collecting garbage immediately at the rate as the union was getting, on a 10 year contract. And the customers can add a clause that says I can’t hire any Union members because they don;t want a repeat of these shenanigans. > > So the union had better be damn sure that the customers think they are worth what they are demanding. Because if they don’t, the customers will simply pay someone else, and all the Union members are out of a job. > > In the real world, strikes only work when the Union has a monopoly sanctioned by the government, or obtained through threat of violence. In an Objectivist world neither are possible. in such a world, a strike is very likely to be indistinguishable from a resignation. Unionists say they aren’t turning up to work today, customers say don’t turn up tomorrow either. > > The only time a strike could work in an Objectivist world is as a reminder for customers who have come to take services for granted. This wouldn’t happen often. At any other time, striking will only serve to produce bad blood and prove the unreliability of the Union, weakening their negotiating position. so, in the objectivist world if i own a large company with a union i can just hire people who work for less and replace them? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/234 "2014-02-20T09:22:16Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > so, in the objectivist world if i own a large company with a union i can just hire people who work for less and replace them? Yes, unless you have a pre-existing contract with the Union not to do so. I think this is the important point people miss here. If the Union is genuinely valuable, then it should be able to negotiate a contract of that sort without difficulty If it can’t negotiate such a contract without using threat of violence, then I can’t see how it is legitimate. ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/235 "2014-02-20T09:25:17Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > “yes, you have to tax people in order to have police, and building inspectors and restaurant inspectors and dog catchers and all manner of similar necessities”. > > \<\> > > “more regulation than less. a neighborhood where all the fences must be of an exact height and people must mow their lawns and no trash or abandoned car parts can be left in the front yard, that is not ideal, but, it’s better than the polar opposite where trash and car parts are all over the yard in poor blue collar neighborhoods”. “More regulation”, you seem to feel that you are I control of this regulation. You need more police because of the criminals. You need more dog catchers because of those unwilling to train their dogs. You need more garbage collectors because of those unwilling to do it for themselves. Who is driving these needs? Is it you, the non-criminal, good dog training, trash collecting land owner. Or are you in effect paying protection money to those who don’t live up to your ideals? You advocate for more regulation under the assumption that it will solve something. At the same time you base your entire idea of regulation off of what others may do. You have in effect given all regulation over to those that won’t abide by it in exchange for nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/236 "2014-02-20T09:26:53Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yes, unless you have a pre-existing contract with the Union not to do so. > > I think this is the important point people miss here. If the Union is genuinely valuable, then it should be able to negotiate a contract of that sort without difficulty If it can’t negotiate such a contract without using threat of violence, then I can’t see how it is legitimate. what??? the point is workers, who form unions, AREN’T valuable to their employers. if they were, there would be no need FOR a union. only by making them irreplaceable are they able to negotiate. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/237 "2014-02-20T09:35:54Z")
> [@sitchensis](#): > > “More regulation”, you seem to feel that you are I control of this regulation. You need more police because of the criminals. You need more dog catchers because of those unwilling to train their dogs. You need more garbage collectors because of those unwilling to do it for themselves. > > Who is driving these needs? Is it you, the non-criminal, good dog training, trash collecting land owner. Or are you in effect paying protection money to those who don’t live up to your ideals? You advocate for more regulation under the assumption that it will solve something. At the same time you base your entire idea of regulation off of what others may do. You have in effect given all regulation over to those that won’t abide by it in exchange for nothing. 1- I suspect that when you say you in reference to me you actually mean Robert163. Whereas when I say you need dog catchers I am using the hypothetical you. So if you could quit trying to personalize the fact that I point out that dog catchers are necessary because they pick up stray dogs, I would appreciate it. 2- I really have no idea what you mean when you say a civil regulation is protection money. Under such a model you are a victim either way. You are a victim if a stray dog bites you. According to you, you are a victim if you pay taxes for the dog catchers salary. 3- “You have in effect given all regulation over to those that won’t abide by it in exchange for nothing.” only if the dog catcher doesn’t do his job, like never, just sits at the shop and drinks coffe all day. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/238 "2014-02-20T12:22:34Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > the point is workers, who form unions, AREN’T valuable to their employers. if they were, there would be no need FOR a union. You are seriously contending that non-union workers do not get paid anything? :rolleyes: Utter nonsense. Non-union workers still get paid. Therefore they obviously have value to the people paying them. Unless you are contending that employers pay non-union workers out of charity since, according to you, they have no value to the employer. You’ve posted a lot of silly and easily disprovable nonsense in this thread, but this one takes the cake. > [@](#): > > …only by making them irreplaceable are they able to negotiate. Really? So non-Union workers are never able to negotiate huh? Care to stake your reputation on this ludicrous claim? I hope you say yes. We can then end this debate very swiftly and dispense with further hyperbolic, absolutist, declarative nonsense of this type. Of course you won’t agree. You will instead attempt to weasel and say that you didn’t mean “literally” no value and didn’t literally mean that workers have to “always” be made indispensable to negotiate. You don’t seem to understand that there are a great many industries and entire national economies where the vast majority of workers are not Unionised. And they negotiate just fine. So your claims are falsified instantly. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/239 "2014-02-20T12:28:49Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You are seriously contending that non-union workers do not get paid anything? :rolleyes: > > Utter nonsense. Non-union workers still get paid. Therefore they obviously have value to the people paying them. Unless you are contending that employers pay non-union workers out of charity since, according to you, they have no value to the employer. > > You’ve posted a lot of silly and easily disprovable nonsense in this thread, but this one takes the cake. > > Really? So non-Union workers are never able to negotiate huh? Care to stake your reputation on this ludicrous claim? > > I hope you say yes. We can then end this debate very swiftly and dispense with further hyperbolic, absolutist, declarative nonsense of this type. > > Of course you won’t agree. You will instead attempt to weasel and say that you didn’t mean “literally” no value and didn’t literally mean that workers have to “always” be made indispensable to negotiate. > > You don’t seem to understand that there are a great many industries and entire national economies where the vast majority of workers are not Unionised. And they negotiate just fine. So your claims are falsified instantly. I meant that if the union has a wage of $30 an hour, if they can be replaced at whim, the boss/owner will just go out and hire people who will work for $10 an hour. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569/240 "2014-02-20T14:24:11Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But you’re missing the central issue. It’s not enough for somebody in Galt’s Gulch to own a garbage collection company. That garbage company also has to have a bunch of employees who drive trucks around and pick up garbage cans and dump the garbage into a truck. So who are these employees? That’s the central topic of the thread: Who collects the trash in Galt’s Gulch? People for whom this is the best job they can get. Same as in the real world. In the book, not every Gulchian is a super-genius, like John. If you had read the book, you would know that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-collects-the-trash-in-galts-gulch/681569.md?page=13)