No, you're just wrong. You're carrying water for the employers who want to squeeze their employees.
Again, there is no actual problem here, just an artificial one created by employers unwilling to pay their workers and crying about it. Don't buy into it.
It's not about employers in this case. If we think being a truck driver is an important job we can subsidize truck drivers federally, via taxes.
At the end of the day, society (in the form of government regulation) gets to decide what is and isn't an important job (i.e. government subsidies), and we the people can certainly put our thumb on the scale.
People collectively decided truck drivers were overpaid [relatively] in the 1970s, hence the deregulation of the trucking industry which led to a collapse in trucker's salaries. No use blaming employers here - it was decided by the government (representing the people of the U.S.)
In this case it is. The discussion is about how employers have a dream that isn't being realized. They are metaphorical 10 year old-boys drooling over the idea of owning a Ferrari, without the capability to actually buy one.
The only "problem" is that their dream is remaining a dream. Which isn't actually a problem. Dreams aren't supposed to be realized. They are meant to be just dreams. Who gives a shit if a 10 year old can't own a Ferrari? And that is what the parent is pointing out – that the '10 year-old cries' of business are meaningless. Let them dream, but it ends there.
If people of the U.S. want to give truckers more money, they are free to do so, but that is well beyond the topic at hand.
Again, there is no actual problem here, just an artificial one created by employers unwilling to pay their workers and crying about it. Don't buy into it.