3 ms·

I do agree that labor hours can be costly, but if we're looking at Western Europe as a competitor to America, then surely we're looking at a situation where lab

by rtpg 4y ago

I do agree that labor hours can be costly, but if we're looking at Western Europe as a competitor to America, then surely we're looking at a situation where labor costs should be lower? Surely? Like Belgian and Dutch workers aren't going to be cheap either, right?

bobthepanda 4y ago
So, not an expert in shipbuilding, but from research I've seen on transit costs (which are also subject to provisions regarding American-made content) it is generally also a theme of labor productivity. American companies and workers are generally unfamiliar with best practices elsewhere, and workers are also generally not supportive of increasing labor productivity. In that same vein, no American company has actually built a dredger like this before, so I doubt they'd be able to go about building one in the best way possible. --- According to Reuters, the ports of Rotterdam & Shanghai use 5 workers to do what 20 do in US ports, which is a contributing factor to American supply chain disruption. [1] Automation & productivity gain is an increasing source of labor strife at US ports. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ports-labor/analysis-u-s-ports-drive-to-control-costs-leads-to-labor-strife-idUSBRE90G06W20130117 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ports-labor/analysis-...
simonh 4y ago
Very often the issue with regulatory traps like this is nobody will risk the massive investment, when their entire business could be wiped out by the repeal of a little known law. Without the dredge act the investors on such a project would be out hundreds of millions, and left with a completely uncompetitive business. Who would risk that when there are people actively lobbying for repeal and doing so is such an obviously good idea? Meanwhile the current US dredging companies are raking in fat profits from operating cheap low capacity ships, so they have no incentive. If you want to get in on the business the low risk high reward approach is to build a low capacity dredger, or adapt an existing vessel, so that’s what people do.
barry-cotter 4y ago
Belgian and Dutch workers have a domestic shipbuilding industry of note which the US doesn’t really. They have the benefit of many, many decades of expertise so they’re far more productive than some hypothetical US shipbuilding industry. And US workers are paid more in every industry than foreign equivalents in every industry I’m aware of. The US is much richer per capita than every other independent state. It’s worth it to pay those labour costs if they’re far more productive but in this industry they’re really, really not.

by rtpg 4y ago

bobthepanda 4y ago

So, not an expert in shipbuilding, but from research I've seen on transit costs (which are also subject to provisions regarding American-made content) it is generally also a theme of labor productivity. American companies and workers are generally unfamiliar with best practices elsewhere, and workers are also generally not supportive of increasing labor productivity. In that same vein, no American company has actually built a dredger like this before, so I doubt they'd be able to go about building one in the best way possible. --- According to Reuters, the ports of Rotterdam & Shanghai use 5 workers to do what 20 do in US ports, which is a contributing factor to American supply chain disruption. [1] Automation & productivity gain is an increasing source of labor strife at US ports. [1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ports-labor/analysis-u-s-ports-drive-to-control-costs-leads-to-labor-strife-idUSBRE90G06W20130117 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-ports-labor/analysis-...

simonh 4y ago

Very often the issue with regulatory traps like this is nobody will risk the massive investment, when their entire business could be wiped out by the repeal of a little known law. Without the dredge act the investors on such a project would be out hundreds of millions, and left with a completely uncompetitive business. Who would risk that when there are people actively lobbying for repeal and doing so is such an obviously good idea? Meanwhile the current US dredging companies are raking in fat profits from operating cheap low capacity ships, so they have no incentive. If you want to get in on the business the low risk high reward approach is to build a low capacity dredger, or adapt an existing vessel, so that’s what people do.

barry-cotter 4y ago

Belgian and Dutch workers have a domestic shipbuilding industry of note which the US doesn’t really. They have the benefit of many, many decades of expertise so they’re far more productive than some hypothetical US shipbuilding industry. And US workers are paid more in every industry than foreign equivalents in every industry I’m aware of. The US is much richer per capita than every other independent state. It’s worth it to pay those labour costs if they’re far more productive but in this industry they’re really, really not.