4 ms·

> The shipyards are also unionized to hell and back, with VERY cushy contracts. The problem here isn't the unions, it's the fact that we privatized building sh

> The shipyards are also unionized to hell and back, with VERY cushy contracts. The problem here isn't the unions, it's the fact that we privatized building ships. It's yet another example that privatizing all parts of the government is a fundamentally bad idea. Government goals do not align with private industry goals and private industry, particularly in a well captured market like defense and ship building, gets to command insane prices because they know the US will pony up. The reason the US was able to make advanced navy ships right up until the 80s is because shipbuilding was done by public industry. Insanely, Clinton and Reagan started the process of privatizing our fleet capabilities and it's landed us exactly where you think it would. The reason we don't have ice breaker ships being built is because it's a niche market and ship builders are all too happy to say "no" or to charge an exorbitant price so the US military will go away.

roenxi 2y ago
I see downvotes at the time I commented, which is unfortunate as ideas should be at least explored. Someone on the internet has been keeping statistics [0] that do suggest the collapse in output happened in the 1980s. But on the other hand, the same stats show a steady decline in the number of companies from 1950 that was only stabilised after the collapse in output, so it is probably arguable that the high-production situation was unsustainable. Economics can be complex. [0] http://shipbuildinghistory.com/statistics/decline.htm http://shipbuildinghistory.com/statistics/decline.htm
- xyzzyz 2y ago
  Yes, the collapse has happened, but it had not happened due to "privatization" of government shipyard. These were all privately owned shipyard that collapsed. The comment you are responding to is inventing some kind of alternative history that simply has not happened, and probably this is why it's downvoted.
xyzzyz 2y ago
Sorry, what are you talking about? None of this is true. Government-owned shipyards were not historically responsible for significant fraction of delivered tonnage. In fact, given the utter atrophy of private shipbuilding industry in US today, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of tonnage delivered by government owned shipyards today was higher than ever.

roenxi 2y ago

I see downvotes at the time I commented, which is unfortunate as ideas should be at least explored. Someone on the internet has been keeping statistics [0] that do suggest the collapse in output happened in the 1980s. But on the other hand, the same stats show a steady decline in the number of companies from 1950 that was only stabilised after the collapse in output, so it is probably arguable that the high-production situation was unsustainable. Economics can be complex. [0] http://shipbuildinghistory.com/statistics/decline.htm http://shipbuildinghistory.com/statistics/decline.htm

xyzzyz 2y ago
Yes, the collapse has happened, but it had not happened due to "privatization" of government shipyard. These were all privately owned shipyard that collapsed. The comment you are responding to is inventing some kind of alternative history that simply has not happened, and probably this is why it's downvoted.

xyzzyz 2y ago

Sorry, what are you talking about? None of this is true. Government-owned shipyards were not historically responsible for significant fraction of delivered tonnage. In fact, given the utter atrophy of private shipbuilding industry in US today, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of tonnage delivered by government owned shipyards today was higher than ever.