7 ms·

> We also see the same cultural issues that we saw with American shipbuilding more broadly. There seems to be a lack of motivation to take maritime issues serio

by quasse 2y ago

> We also see the same cultural issues that we saw with American shipbuilding more broadly. There seems to be a lack of motivation to take maritime issues seriously or treat them as important. This is the meat of the article in my mind. The US has globalized away its maritime industry in general and we now lack the institutional knowledge, infrastructure, and labor force needed to operate even semi-independently on the maritime front. Just look at our domestic shipbuilding capacity vs. China: https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/chinas-shipbuilding-capacity-is-232-times-greater-than-that-of-the-united-states/ https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/chinas-shipbuildi... WA state has the same problem trying to get ferries built for the Puget sound. Every decade the fleet gets more dilapidated and the replacements get more expensive and farther behind schedule. The legislature has ditched the requirements that the boats be built at a WA shipyard and they still can't find builders.

ben7799 2y ago
Interesting. I would conjecture that we have the same cultural issues at this point preventing us from building effective passenger rail systems.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Passenger rail systems require the procurement of immense amounts of very pricey land, or the transfer of ownership of existing rail lines. I don’t see that as a similar cultural issue. Boat building can be solved by spending money to build boats (and perhaps waiting a couple decades for expertise to be built up). Using eminent domain or changing the view of the public on land rights is a much higher barrier.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    > Boat building can be solved by spending money to build boats (and perhaps waiting a couple decades for expertise to be built up). I actually don't take it for granted that enough money thrown at a problem can automatically solve it. There's a critical mass of underlying assumptions without which the marginal output of each additional dollar supplied becomes so limited that it just doesn't make sense, even with the government money printer.
- Animats 2y ago
  Have you tried the new Caltrain? It's getting good reviews even from Japanese.
- philwelch 2y ago
  The US doesn't have effective passenger rail systems for the same reason that Europe and Japan don't have effective freight rail systems: you have to optimize for one use case or the other or else have two completely separate systems, which takes up a lot of extra land.
  - xyzzyz 2y ago
    There is also another reason, which is that passenger rail makes sense only in specific geographic and economic circumstances, and outside of Northeastern corridor, these are very few. Commuter rail requires urban population densities that do not exist in most US metros. Intercity passenger rail only makes sense at a very limited scope until air travel beats it on both speed and cost. Europe and Asia just have different patterns of development.
  - poincaredisk 2y ago
    >for the same reason that Europe and Japan don't have effective freight rail systems ...don't we? I'm not sure about the effectiveness or how to measure it, but I know that a lot of cargo - especially long distance cargo - travels by rail.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      Europe has, by proportion, significantly more trucking and significantly less rail freight than the United States. Relatedly, the average American freight train is 2-3x longer than the maximum allowed length of a European freight train.
cyberax 2y ago
> The US has globalized away its maritime industry It hasn't. Jones Act _protects_ the US maritime industry, so it stagnated and died. Nobody wants the US ships unless they have to use them, they're crap compared to ships from other countries. > and they still can't find builders. That's because shipyards are basically a defense industry subsidiary. So they receive a fixed amount of orders, and it's known for years in advance. The shipyards are also unionized to hell and back, with VERY cushy contracts. So shipyards can't hire temporary workforce for a given project.
- ronjakoi 2y ago
  I can assure you, shipyards here in Finland are just as, if not more, unionized.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    It seems quite likely that Finish unions work differently to US ones. The legal details and organisational traditions matter.
    - jltsiren 2y ago
      It's just free markets in action. Finland is a small country that depends on international trade. Industries must remain competitive or go out of business. Unions that harm the competitiveness too much won't survive in the long term. US domestic market is much larger. Uncompetitive industries can survive on domestic demand. Especially with some regulations that help. It doesn't even have to be explicitly protectionist regulation. Just regulate things the way Americans consider the best, instead of adopting international standards. That can create sufficient barriers to entry to allow uncompetitive industries and uncooperative unions survive.
  - arthurjj 2y ago
    This is a common communication problem between Americans and Europeans where we're using the same word to mean two different types of organization. In the US you should replace "union" with "cartel, likely criminal" eg the boilermakers "A federal grand jury in Kansas returned an indictment yesterday charging seven defendants, including five current and former high-level officers of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmith, Forgers and Helpers (Boilermakers Union) for their alleged roles in a 15-year, $20 million embezzlement scheme." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-former-presidents-boilermakers-international-union-among-seven-indicted-20m-embezzlement https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-former-presidents-boilerm...
ViewTrick1002 2y ago
It all stems from the Jones act. [1] The American shipbuilding industry has been allowed to atrophy in an idea that protectionism would lead to good commercial the results. What little gets built in the US is way behind the global peers in terms of economics and quality. As usual the end results are that the entire shipping industry works around the Jones act, for example cruise ships from Florida docking in the Bahamas, and for the regions that can’t do it they are tough out of luck. Why can’t the US build offshore wind? Because there are no jones act compliant vessels and the proposed workaround is staging all the materials in Canada and adding an enormous time waste to the projects. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
- stackskipton 2y ago
  Congress has been pushed not to eliminate would completely wipe out tiny remaining American Merchant Marine fleet. Most people who want to get rid of Jones Act are economists and other types who sole concern is "How much more money can we make from cheap shipping" while ignoring any national security concerns. We could talk about modify it maybe allowing purchase of specialized ships from overseas friendly countries, like icebreakers from Finland.
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    That is the problem with protectionism. What starts with good intentions ends with a bandaid that someday will have to be ripped off at the cost of the people who made a subsidized living based on it.
    - stackskipton 2y ago
      Except if you can't move stuff around without support of 3rd party nations, that's defense crippling. If you want to be a global power, you require great navy, both civilian and military. That's been true since 1500s and will likely remain true for many years to come. So question is, do we throw out Jones Act and slowly stop being World Superpower or leave it and pay higher upfront costs in certain places? That's political answer obviously.
throwway120385 2y ago
Even Whatcom County is having difficulty replacing the Whatcom Chief on budget, with the latest cost estimate being more than twice the federal grant they were given. This is all critical infrastructure in Washington but nobody knows how to build them in the US anymore.
talldayo 2y ago
I think that's the sentiment that think-tanks have been pushing recently. But outside a very "us-vs-them" viewpoint with China, I don't think it holds true. America's Navy does it's job pretty much perfectly for defending US interests at home and abroad. We have the tactical elements that we want to field, and we maintain them in a condition so they can provide the desired effect at any time. Building more ships isn't a panacea, and in many cases it's a great way to end up having billions of dollars in rusting assets sitting in dry-dock. It's worth flipping the question on it's head. China's ambitions are very clearly best carried-out by a Navy that can harass Taiwan and expand their territorial claims in the waters surrounding Japan and eventually even threatening Australia. This is a smart move on their behalf, but they will be contending with unfriendly airspace and ground-based anti-shipping weapons. If you want to look at it from a purely military materiel perspective, I would argue the US has weighed their options and taken a less Naval-dependent route.
- happakid7 2y ago
  This type of thinking can strike as post-hoc rationalization. the US need a navy to have a presence in the middle east , and Asia. We are down to the bones for force projection and to secure our own shipping. There is no 'less Naval dependent' way to police the worlds waters - the alternative is to give up. Which is fine, the USA has been struggling with naval force projection for some time.
MostlyStable 2y ago
>globalized away it's maritime industry According to the article he references that talks about the problems with shipbuilding more generally[0], the US has never been competitive in shipbuilding at any point in the post-wooden ships period, long before globalization was the issue. [0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build...
cyanydeez 2y ago
Seems more likely they just chose America first partners and ignored the industry leaders and support. Globalization would have selected the experts rather than whatever random Germans and inexperienced firms present. This is all about isolationism.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
seb1204 2y ago
I heard that we are now (2000 and onwards) mostly administrators that try to minimize their risk as opposed (think after great depression) to doers that get measured and appraised by what the deliver. Getting stuff done in manufacturing with the right amount of ass covering, safety and documentation as opposed to over engineering it is very hard nowadays due to the complexities we have. The complex systems require different experts who cover themselves against fuckups.

by quasse 2y ago

ben7799 2y ago

Interesting. I would conjecture that we have the same cultural issues at this point preventing us from building effective passenger rail systems.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
Passenger rail systems require the procurement of immense amounts of very pricey land, or the transfer of ownership of existing rail lines. I don’t see that as a similar cultural issue. Boat building can be solved by spending money to build boats (and perhaps waiting a couple decades for expertise to be built up). Using eminent domain or changing the view of the public on land rights is a much higher barrier.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > Boat building can be solved by spending money to build boats (and perhaps waiting a couple decades for expertise to be built up). I actually don't take it for granted that enough money thrown at a problem can automatically solve it. There's a critical mass of underlying assumptions without which the marginal output of each additional dollar supplied becomes so limited that it just doesn't make sense, even with the government money printer.
Animats 2y ago
Have you tried the new Caltrain? It's getting good reviews even from Japanese.
philwelch 2y ago
The US doesn't have effective passenger rail systems for the same reason that Europe and Japan don't have effective freight rail systems: you have to optimize for one use case or the other or else have two completely separate systems, which takes up a lot of extra land.
- xyzzyz 2y ago
  There is also another reason, which is that passenger rail makes sense only in specific geographic and economic circumstances, and outside of Northeastern corridor, these are very few. Commuter rail requires urban population densities that do not exist in most US metros. Intercity passenger rail only makes sense at a very limited scope until air travel beats it on both speed and cost. Europe and Asia just have different patterns of development.
- poincaredisk 2y ago
  >for the same reason that Europe and Japan don't have effective freight rail systems ...don't we? I'm not sure about the effectiveness or how to measure it, but I know that a lot of cargo - especially long distance cargo - travels by rail.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    Europe has, by proportion, significantly more trucking and significantly less rail freight than the United States. Relatedly, the average American freight train is 2-3x longer than the maximum allowed length of a European freight train.

cyberax 2y ago

> The US has globalized away its maritime industry It hasn't. Jones Act _protects_ the US maritime industry, so it stagnated and died. Nobody wants the US ships unless they have to use them, they're crap compared to ships from other countries. > and they still can't find builders. That's because shipyards are basically a defense industry subsidiary. So they receive a fixed amount of orders, and it's known for years in advance. The shipyards are also unionized to hell and back, with VERY cushy contracts. So shipyards can't hire temporary workforce for a given project.

ronjakoi 2y ago
I can assure you, shipyards here in Finland are just as, if not more, unionized.
- roenxi 2y ago
  It seems quite likely that Finish unions work differently to US ones. The legal details and organisational traditions matter.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    It's just free markets in action. Finland is a small country that depends on international trade. Industries must remain competitive or go out of business. Unions that harm the competitiveness too much won't survive in the long term. US domestic market is much larger. Uncompetitive industries can survive on domestic demand. Especially with some regulations that help. It doesn't even have to be explicitly protectionist regulation. Just regulate things the way Americans consider the best, instead of adopting international standards. That can create sufficient barriers to entry to allow uncompetitive industries and uncooperative unions survive.
- arthurjj 2y ago
  This is a common communication problem between Americans and Europeans where we're using the same word to mean two different types of organization. In the US you should replace "union" with "cartel, likely criminal" eg the boilermakers "A federal grand jury in Kansas returned an indictment yesterday charging seven defendants, including five current and former high-level officers of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmith, Forgers and Helpers (Boilermakers Union) for their alleged roles in a 15-year, $20 million embezzlement scheme." https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-former-presidents-boilermakers-international-union-among-seven-indicted-20m-embezzlement https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/two-former-presidents-boilerm...

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

It all stems from the Jones act. [1] The American shipbuilding industry has been allowed to atrophy in an idea that protectionism would lead to good commercial the results. What little gets built in the US is way behind the global peers in terms of economics and quality. As usual the end results are that the entire shipping industry works around the Jones act, for example cruise ships from Florida docking in the Bahamas, and for the regions that can’t do it they are tough out of luck. Why can’t the US build offshore wind? Because there are no jones act compliant vessels and the proposed workaround is staging all the materials in Canada and adding an enormous time waste to the projects. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920

stackskipton 2y ago
Congress has been pushed not to eliminate would completely wipe out tiny remaining American Merchant Marine fleet. Most people who want to get rid of Jones Act are economists and other types who sole concern is "How much more money can we make from cheap shipping" while ignoring any national security concerns. We could talk about modify it maybe allowing purchase of specialized ships from overseas friendly countries, like icebreakers from Finland.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  That is the problem with protectionism. What starts with good intentions ends with a bandaid that someday will have to be ripped off at the cost of the people who made a subsidized living based on it.
  - stackskipton 2y ago
    Except if you can't move stuff around without support of 3rd party nations, that's defense crippling. If you want to be a global power, you require great navy, both civilian and military. That's been true since 1500s and will likely remain true for many years to come. So question is, do we throw out Jones Act and slowly stop being World Superpower or leave it and pay higher upfront costs in certain places? That's political answer obviously.

throwway120385 2y ago

Even Whatcom County is having difficulty replacing the Whatcom Chief on budget, with the latest cost estimate being more than twice the federal grant they were given. This is all critical infrastructure in Washington but nobody knows how to build them in the US anymore.

talldayo 2y ago

I think that's the sentiment that think-tanks have been pushing recently. But outside a very "us-vs-them" viewpoint with China, I don't think it holds true. America's Navy does it's job pretty much perfectly for defending US interests at home and abroad. We have the tactical elements that we want to field, and we maintain them in a condition so they can provide the desired effect at any time. Building more ships isn't a panacea, and in many cases it's a great way to end up having billions of dollars in rusting assets sitting in dry-dock. It's worth flipping the question on it's head. China's ambitions are very clearly best carried-out by a Navy that can harass Taiwan and expand their territorial claims in the waters surrounding Japan and eventually even threatening Australia. This is a smart move on their behalf, but they will be contending with unfriendly airspace and ground-based anti-shipping weapons. If you want to look at it from a purely military materiel perspective, I would argue the US has weighed their options and taken a less Naval-dependent route.

happakid7 2y ago
This type of thinking can strike as post-hoc rationalization. the US need a navy to have a presence in the middle east , and Asia. We are down to the bones for force projection and to secure our own shipping. There is no 'less Naval dependent' way to police the worlds waters - the alternative is to give up. Which is fine, the USA has been struggling with naval force projection for some time.

MostlyStable 2y ago

>globalized away it's maritime industry According to the article he references that talks about the problems with shipbuilding more generally[0], the US has never been competitive in shipbuilding at any point in the post-wooden ships period, long before globalization was the issue. [0] https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-cant-the-us-build...

cyanydeez 2y ago

Seems more likely they just chose America first partners and ignored the industry leaders and support. Globalization would have selected the experts rather than whatever random Germans and inexperienced firms present. This is all about isolationism.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

seb1204 2y ago

I heard that we are now (2000 and onwards) mostly administrators that try to minimize their risk as opposed (think after great depression) to doers that get measured and appraised by what the deliver. Getting stuff done in manufacturing with the right amount of ass covering, safety and documentation as opposed to over engineering it is very hard nowadays due to the complexities we have. The complex systems require different experts who cover themselves against fuckups.