5 ms·

I don't get this doom and gloom. The population of Hawaii is 1.3 million, a third of the oil is from Russia. That is minuscule on the world scale. Oil is an ext

I don't get this doom and gloom. The population of Hawaii is 1.3 million, a third of the oil is from Russia. That is minuscule on the world scale. Oil is an extremely liquid trade, and Hawaii is already buying non Jones act oil. Jones Act itself is a problem, and a blessing. It ensures a US maritime industry but has due to lack of competition left it so far behind the world standard that the minute it is removed the entire sector will go bankrupt from international competition. The Decline of the U.S. Merchant Marine | What's Going on With Shipping? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJn0bCWx_9g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJn0bCWx_9g

supernova87a 5y ago
I agree. On a related topic, I think it's important that we have some low cost software developer labor to make sure that we have the ability to develop things cheaply and compete with other countries. I propose that we start by reducing your salary by 40% so that we've got some lower cost labor. It's miniscule on the world scale, so you shouldn't complain I suppose? I don't get the doom and gloom.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Is not that the thing? Working in software I am already competing with the world. My job could get out-sourced tomorrow, but apparently that does not happen. See the difference? Value vs. cost. Very different.
- mattnewton 5y ago
  Honestly and unironically yes, this sounds great. I don't want to build a career on protectionism. I would start a company tomorrow if quality software development labor was 40% cheaper, it would make so many use cases economical.
  - worik 5y ago
    > it would make so many use cases economical. If exploiting desperate people is the measure an economical use case, no wonder business has a bad reputation
    - mattnewton 5y ago
      I am confused, how would a 40% reduction of current software salaries in the US for top talent due to competition mean exploiting people? Are you against training more doctors too because they would make less money and therefore be more exploited? What about the people who buy their services? Or do I misunderstand? There certainly are exploitive labor practices but I don't think being for decreasing the costs of a profession due to free competition has to be equated to being for exploiting people of that profession. I think that many industries and use cases could benefit from software automation, but it is expensive to hire those people. If they are good there is endless demand for their skills in ad tech alone, where they can afford to pay them a salary and benefits valued over 20-30% of the gross profit that entire company brings in a year.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
echelon 5y ago
> Jones Act itself is a problem, and a blessing. It ensures a US maritime industry but has due to lack of competition left it so far behind the world standard that the minute it is removed the entire sector will go bankrupt from international competition. It's too bad we didn't have something like this for manufacturing, too. If we'd kept key component assembly in the US, we could've adapted to supply chain disruptions or unfavorable trading partnerships. Our nation should be able to sustain itself as a hedge against a multitude of geopolitical risks as well as lay sandbags against the erosion of economic power.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
changoplatanero 5y ago
I wonder why we don't have more laws that gradually change things. Like instead of having jones act or no jones act as the only two options what if we could slowly remove the jones act at a rate of 3% per year or whatever? It could begin to improve things for people but also give the domestic industry some time to adapt.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> Jones Act itself is a problem, and a blessing. It ensures a US maritime industry but has due to lack of competition left it so far behind the world standard that the minute it is removed the entire sector will go bankrupt from international competition. > I wonder why we don't have more laws that gradually change things. Like instead of having jones act or no jones act as the only two options what if we could slowly remove the jones act at a rate of 3% per year or whatever? It could begin to improve things for people but also give the domestic industry some time to adapt. Because maybe that would just draw out the failure, while still failing to achieve some of the main goals of the Jones Act? Economic "efficiency" is not the only goal that should be pursued, which the events of the last few years should have made clear.
csense 5y ago
> left it so far behind the world standard I'm pretty sure "the world standard" for shipping is low pay and workers getting treated like crap. In any sector of the economy where you don't have protectionism, it quickly becomes a "race to the bottom" where companies move to the least regulated places where there's no minimum wage; various forms of worker abuse are legal; and there's basically no safety / environmental protection.
macinjosh 5y ago
The problem is the US has to maintain payment schemes including SWIFT with Russia in order to use their oil. So it makes blocking them from the system difficult.

supernova87a 5y ago

I agree. On a related topic, I think it's important that we have some low cost software developer labor to make sure that we have the ability to develop things cheaply and compete with other countries. I propose that we start by reducing your salary by 40% so that we've got some lower cost labor. It's miniscule on the world scale, so you shouldn't complain I suppose? I don't get the doom and gloom.

Gwypaas 5y ago
Is not that the thing? Working in software I am already competing with the world. My job could get out-sourced tomorrow, but apparently that does not happen. See the difference? Value vs. cost. Very different.
mattnewton 5y ago
Honestly and unironically yes, this sounds great. I don't want to build a career on protectionism. I would start a company tomorrow if quality software development labor was 40% cheaper, it would make so many use cases economical.
- worik 5y ago
  > it would make so many use cases economical. If exploiting desperate people is the measure an economical use case, no wonder business has a bad reputation
  - mattnewton 5y ago
    I am confused, how would a 40% reduction of current software salaries in the US for top talent due to competition mean exploiting people? Are you against training more doctors too because they would make less money and therefore be more exploited? What about the people who buy their services? Or do I misunderstand? There certainly are exploitive labor practices but I don't think being for decreasing the costs of a profession due to free competition has to be equated to being for exploiting people of that profession. I think that many industries and use cases could benefit from software automation, but it is expensive to hire those people. If they are good there is endless demand for their skills in ad tech alone, where they can afford to pay them a salary and benefits valued over 20-30% of the gross profit that entire company brings in a year.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

echelon 5y ago

> Jones Act itself is a problem, and a blessing. It ensures a US maritime industry but has due to lack of competition left it so far behind the world standard that the minute it is removed the entire sector will go bankrupt from international competition. It's too bad we didn't have something like this for manufacturing, too. If we'd kept key component assembly in the US, we could've adapted to supply chain disruptions or unfavorable trading partnerships. Our nation should be able to sustain itself as a hedge against a multitude of geopolitical risks as well as lay sandbags against the erosion of economic power.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

changoplatanero 5y ago

I wonder why we don't have more laws that gradually change things. Like instead of having jones act or no jones act as the only two options what if we could slowly remove the jones act at a rate of 3% per year or whatever? It could begin to improve things for people but also give the domestic industry some time to adapt.

tablespoon 5y ago
>> Jones Act itself is a problem, and a blessing. It ensures a US maritime industry but has due to lack of competition left it so far behind the world standard that the minute it is removed the entire sector will go bankrupt from international competition. > I wonder why we don't have more laws that gradually change things. Like instead of having jones act or no jones act as the only two options what if we could slowly remove the jones act at a rate of 3% per year or whatever? It could begin to improve things for people but also give the domestic industry some time to adapt. Because maybe that would just draw out the failure, while still failing to achieve some of the main goals of the Jones Act? Economic "efficiency" is not the only goal that should be pursued, which the events of the last few years should have made clear.

csense 5y ago

> left it so far behind the world standard I'm pretty sure "the world standard" for shipping is low pay and workers getting treated like crap. In any sector of the economy where you don't have protectionism, it quickly becomes a "race to the bottom" where companies move to the least regulated places where there's no minimum wage; various forms of worker abuse are legal; and there's basically no safety / environmental protection.

macinjosh 5y ago

The problem is the US has to maintain payment schemes including SWIFT with Russia in order to use their oil. So it makes blocking them from the system difficult.