24 ms·

Do U.S. ports need more automation?

• fuzzfactor 2y ago
  One thing abut cargo work is that it's always been at full scale since before anybody living was ever born. Ships have always been as big as they can be, and fewer people handle more (retail value) quicker per person than during less-bulky links in the supply chain. So fundamentally plenty of money is being made at the port, regardless of the state of automation, this boils down to the lowest priority until all the other elements leading up to the port are taken to a dramatically improved next level automation themselves.
  • ceejayoz 2y ago
    Huh? Ships have been continually getting larger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_ship...
    • pclmulqdq 2y ago
      Because the upper bound on how big they can be has been getting larger.
    • dhosek 2y ago
      What OP is arguing is that each ship is built to the largest possible size at the time of its construction. There are plenty of external limitations at hand, e.g., the size of docking facilities, canal clearance, etc. that mean that a container ship can’t get larger than X.
      • hermitdev 2y ago
        Exactly. There's literally classes of ships that are something "max". e.g. Panamax. Panamax ships are literally built to the absolute limit of what will fit through the locks at the Panama Canal. And yes, sometimes the locks get bigger, and the ships follow.
    • Validark 2y ago
      For the original commenter to be wrong you'd have to argue that they've been underutilizing what's possible in the state of the art. Looking at the Wikipedia page, I don't get that impression. It sounds like giant engines and equipment on the terminal side are the main limitations, and I assume those capabilities have increased over time. Maybe the original commenter is wrong, although I highly doubt that cargo technology has been underutilized unless the cost of state of the art is/was truly so astronomical such that it genuinely doesn't make financial sense.
      • fuzzfactor 2y ago
        With crude oil tankers decades ago the indicators were the bigger the better financially, so that's what was done, and bigger ships were built and financial gains realized. It was only proven how big was too big once a few ultra-large had been built, and the point of diminishing returns had been exceeded enough so accurate math could finally be accomplished. Routine commercial operation has been scaled back decades ago to less than the max. Less than the max that is physically possible, focused now more accurately on better returns.
  • sidewndr46 2y ago
    The cargo container was invented in 1956. The industry completely changed in just a few years. Look up the "docklands" area in the UK for example. I'm reasonably certain people alive today were born before 1956.
    • flerchin 2y ago
      Very few people alive before 1956 are working today.
      • s_dev 2y ago
        Joe Biden is.
        • NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
          [flagged]
      • fuzzfactor 2y ago
        >Very few people alive before 1956 are working today. I resemble that remark ;) I am quite few people indeed. Starting a new company soon anyway, and it's going to take a lot more effort than just working there. Plus it does have something to do with automation and cargo subcontracting in my niche domain. >The industry completely changed in just a few years That does sound about right, IIRC it did only take from 1956 until about the mid-1980'a before containers were everywhere, a relatively few years when it comes to cargo operations.
  • danesparza 2y ago
    You are generalizing too much. The article is specifically about the efficiency of US ports (compared to ports around the world). The striking docker workers called a bit of attention to themselves this month ... and this article makes the interesting point that US dock workers are one of the least efficient in the world.
• NDizzle 2y ago
  [flagged]
• languagehacker 2y ago
  "Should we just fire all the people on strike at the ports" is how container shipping started in the first place
  • chrisco255 2y ago
    No, some things just make sense. Having everything shipped in randomly sized containers is terribly inefficient.
    • nordsieck 2y ago
      > No, some things just make sense. Having everything shipped in randomly sized containers is terribly inefficient. That's half the value. The other half is that standardized containers dramatically reduce "shrinkage" at the port. Which was a longstanding problem.
      • datadrivenangel 2y ago
        Shrinkage was a workers benefit! I don't think normalizing petty theft is good, but taking away 'perks' is still unpopular. Imagine the riots we'd get if FAANG workers couldn't take snacks home with them?
        • gruez 2y ago
          /s? I can't imagine people getting up in arms about not being able to take home maybe $5 worth of snacks a day ($1300/year if you do it every working day), when their salaries are 6 figures.
  • watershawl 2y ago
    Yes, Peter Drucker(0) said that shipping containers were one of the greatest inventions of the last century 0) father of modern management and coiner of term "knowledge worker"
    • NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
• pmorici 2y ago
  Half the so called dock workers don’t actually work. They sit at home and collect, “container royalties”. https://nypost.com/2024/10/04/business/how-did-50k-dockworkers-strike-at-us-ports-with-only-25k-jobs/ https://nypost.com/2024/10/04/business/how-did-50k-dockworke...
  • JoBrad 2y ago
    If true, that seems a little nuts. Have any more info on this?
    • stonemetal12 2y ago
      True in that container royalties is a thing, but stated so sensationally as to make it lying. You don't get royalties for nothing. All the references I have been able to find, say you have to work some amount based on Union agreements but somewhere between 700 and 1500 hours per year, and you have to have worked at the port for at least 6 years. They seem to mostly be paid out as an end of year bonus. I haven't found anything that ballparks the amount so I have no clue how much money we are talking about.
  • tivert 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      I agree, we and the union workers should vote in a government that helps people who lose their jobs to progress. After all, it's the job of a government, not a company, to serve the needs of the people.
      • tivert 2y ago
        > I agree, we and the union workers should vote in a government that helps people who lose their jobs to progress. You have an incorrect, oversimple model of politics (e.g. business interests have shown much more capability in influencing government on economic policy to suit their own goals than pretty much every other group, and there are a lot of reasons for that). You use "progress" in a really suspect way, like it's a line pointing one way. It's really about whose progress it is. etc. > After all, it's the job of a government, not a company, to serve the needs of the people. I disagree, and I think that idea is actually at the root of a lot of problems.
• dhosek 2y ago
  It seems to me that comparing Chinese ports to American ports is comparing very different things: I would imagine that the vast majority of the traffic at a Chinese port is export traffic while at an American port it’s import traffic.¹ Furthermore, thanks to centralized decision making, the interface between surface traffic and ship in China will inherently be more efficient than the same interface in the U.S. What I’m wondering is how do U.S. ports compare to, say, Europe or Canada where the situation would be more comparable. ⸻ 1. In fact, it occurs to me that loading the ship should be faster/more efficient than unloading as there’s not necessarily any reason to do any sorting beyond which ship a container goes on at the export point, while at the import point, there needs to be more direction of getting containers onto individual trucks and trains.
  • fallingknife 2y ago
    China is 63-37 exports to imports. US is 44-56. It's different, but it's not so drastically different that I think it would mean a totally different approach to automation is needed.
  • SR2Z 2y ago
    If you compare a port ANYWHERE to the US, odds are that it is more efficient. The US ranks last.
    • rantingdemon 2y ago
      Well not _last_ :). South African ports ranks last, apparently. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-06-10-abysmal-ranking-of-transnet-ports-underscores-long-haul-to-fix-key-logistics-operations-and-infrastructure/#:~:text=The%20ports%20in%20Cape%20Town%20and https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-06-10-abysmal-r...
    • Yeul 2y ago
      I wonder if lack of competition is to blame for that. When you look at Europe each sea faring nation has at least one modern port that can facilitate the largest container ships. And Unions generally don't operate across borders so a strike can be broken by diverting traffic.
• duringmath 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • hooverd 2y ago
    Let's start with software. Drive those wages into the ground!
    • SR2Z 2y ago
      He didn't say "wages need to come down" he said "industries need to be strike proof." Software engineers don't really strike in a way that harms their company.
      • RobotToaster 2y ago
        > He didn't say "wages need to come down" he said "industries need to be strike proof." They're plesionyms
      • tivert 2y ago
        > He didn't say "wages need to come down" he said "industries need to be strike proof." Those two statements are equivalent. Or do you think the capitalist business owner is going to pay is employees more out of the kindness of his own hard, if only they couldn't strike? The whole point of a strike is that it "harms their company," because being able to do that is the only way many workers have any leverage. > Software engineers don't really strike in a way that harms their company. Software engineers have been the beneficiaries of some really cushy market conditions over the last couple decades, which are pretty much guaranteed not to last.
        • SR2Z 2y ago
          > Those two statements are equivalent. Or do you think the capitalist business owner is going to pay is employees more out of the kindness of his own hard, if only they couldn't strike? The capitalist business owner will pay the minimum wage to get the employees they need. This isn't a bad thing. You don't need a strike, you need a strong labor market. > Software engineers have been the beneficiaries of some really cushy market conditions over the last couple decades, which are pretty much guaranteed not to last. Yes, and unions are not gonna fix that. Machinists and factory workers are unionized and their jobs still kind of suck - simply because it is not possible to run a globally competitive company if you have to pay your machinists a ton.
• wormlord 2y ago
  > the video of Daggett threatening to “cripple” the entire economy, or the fact that Daggett is alleged to have connections to organized crime. Half of our economy is built around making as many people replaceable as possible so that their wages can be driven into the ground. Pearl clutching about people resisting downward social mobility by any means necessary is cringe. This put me off to the rest of the article.
  • SR2Z 2y ago
    Most port workers don't even work. They can have a little downward mobility, they've earned it.
    • wasteduniverse 2y ago
      [dead]
    • wormlord 2y ago
      If you value people solely by their economic output then I am just going to immediately discard your opinion.
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Really shows thr empathy of the world once a community talks about the other-group. That Sinclair quote rings true here.
      • SR2Z 2y ago
        This has nothing to do with their value as human beings and everything to do with how they are blocking automation to keep shipping expensive.
    • snapcaster 2y ago
      Where is this same energy for trust fund kids?
      • 2y ago
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  Huh, it sounds like better places to act would be: 1. Repealing the Foreign Dredge Act [1] (or amending it to be compatible with friendshoring); 2. Mandating truck appointment systems (maybe even a centrally-run one, at least for each coast); and 3. Moving to a 24/7 default for our nation’s ports. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Dredge_Act_of_1906 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Dredge_Act_of_1906
  • superice 2y ago
    So about truck appointment systems, you should probably be thankful those are NOT the norm. Generally speaking container terminal operators and transport companies are antagonistic to eachother, since they are NOT in a direct business relationship. The truck transporter (or rail/barge transport companies) are hired either by the shipper directly, or by the shipping company, depending on whether you book a door-to-door or a port-to-port transport. This is also known as carrier haulage and merchant haulage. The container terminal generally works for the shipping line. Long story short: the container terminal will always opt to please their customer (shipping line) over their non-customer (trucking companies). Truck appointment systems are usually used to force transporters to smooth out peak times not in the name of efficiency, but rather to lower the amount of dock workers the container terminal needs to hire. The truck companies generally end up footing the bill for this, both in increased workload and in detention/demurrage costs because they can't get their containers out and back in time. This money goes directly into the pocket of both the shipping line and container terminals as this is typically something they make heavy profits on. Be very wary when container terminals and shipping lines start to push for centrally mandated appointment systems. They are much more consolidated than hinterland transport operators. I'm all for increasing efficiency but let's not even further increase market power for shipping lines and container terminals please.
    • theptip 2y ago
      > smooth out peak times not in the name of efficiency, but rather to lower the amount of dock workers the container terminal needs to hire. I’m confused. Efficiency means you don’t need to hire as much, since your peak-to-trough ratio is lower. Or you can handle more load, if you were capacity-constrained. I don’t get why this is framed as a secret “other reason”. My understanding is that shipping is a competitive market, is this not the case? If it is you expect price decreases to be passed on to customers.
• testcase_delta 2y ago
  I wish the article dug in to the role that unionized labor plays in the productivity of US ports.
• ApolloFortyNine 2y ago
  >current ILA president Harold Daggett has complained about EZ passes for highway tolls eliminating union jobs. I mean that says it all right? I get union's pretty much exist to protect jobs, but it'd be comically inefficient to still require toll booth attendants in this day and age. And you can pretty much extrapolate this to every industry. Improving technology has always eliminated jobs, in pretty much every field.
  • black_puppydog 2y ago
    I think of there were honest, actually effective and humane means in place to get new, we'll payed jobs in the area for the folks in the union (or financial support for this those for who a career change isn't as easy for one reason or another) the automation would be seen quite differently. There is no such thing however, not really. Yes, the world doesn't owe these workers indefinite employment in a specific job. But reality also doesn't owe us or the employer a steady progression towards more efficiency, and workers can (and often will) organize against it of they stand to be hurt.
    • consteval 2y ago
      I think this is the big point that we, as a society, are missing. Take a look at Walmart greeters. Why does that job exist? It's pretty much worthless. Now look at who works the job: elderly people past retirement age, physically disabled people, mentally disabled people. Physical laborers often work a physical labor job for a reason. There's a reason they didn't go to college and sit at a comfy desk writing shitty websites. It's not as simple as "oh those people can just work another job!" Extrapolate this out. Say we eliminate all physical jobs; how many millions of people will be left behind? What happens to them? Do they die?
      • ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        This is a great argument for voting in the government most likely to support social assistance, e.g unemployment, retraining assistance, UBI, etc. Regardless of who you think that might be, Americans should make sure their voice is heard on this issue in the upcoming elections.
• 0xbadcafebee 2y ago
  > the ILA demanded a complete ban on introducing new port automation "The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and output quality." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
• zubiaur 2y ago
  Automation messes up the flow of illegal drugs. The big stuff does not come in a backpack but in container ships/trucks. In LATAM, dock workers make sure this goes undetected. I know of an IE who was championing a dock worker scheduling optimization algo, typical Operations Management stuff. Dude was killed. I'd like to think that this kind of things do not happen here. But every time I've thought along those lines, I've been mistaken. It's just happens at a different scale.
  • Workaccount2 2y ago
    You'd think the union would keep it's head down then. Or they are just power drunk and want their cake while eating it too?
    • underseacables 2y ago
      Considering what can happen if you cross a union? I would imagine people keep their heads down and turn a blind eye
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • Manuel_D 2y ago
      They are in the position to hold critical infrastructure hostage, via a government mandated monopoly on labor. The ports can't just reject the union offer and employ non-union workers. Laws mandate that the ports can only hire union labor. The Union can, if it so desires, shut down most East coast ports until it gets its demands. They're not power drunk, they genuinely have the power to cause massive economic damage. Imagine halfway through a kitchen remodel, your contractor stops working and demands 70% more than the initial quote. But not only that, the government prohibits you from hiring a different contractor at market rates and forces you to negotiate with the original contractor. That's what union negotiations are like.
      • johnnyanmac 2y ago
        That's a weird metaphor considering the situation here was that a contract expired and they had months to negotiate. It's more like if you were in the middle of reworking your kitchen and while that was happening you were talking about doing the bedroom next for a cheaper cost. They said no but you thought you could get a bulk deal. Now add that to a bigger time scale and mass inflation happened between the batrhoom and he bedroom. They have to charge more just to keep buying power.
• antisthenes 2y ago
  Interesting bad actor problems, whereas a union (which is typically a good thing) does a bad thing (25k job grift, making goods more expensive for everyone), and gives all unions a bad public image and weakens them as a result (bad thing, since it erodes worker leverage/rights in the long term) What's the proposed solution here?
  • baggy_trough 2y ago
    Recognizing that unions are not typically a good thing is the first step.
    • onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
      In a 0 sum game, a bad thing for one group is a good thing for another group. Step 1 would be realizing what type of games unions promote.
      • baggy_trough 2y ago
        0 sum would be an improvement.
  • inglor_cz 2y ago
    "typically a good thing" For WHOM? There is a classical Roman legal adage "Cui prodest?" ("Who profits?"). I wish people started to apply it to situations and organizations before making blanket statements like this one. A union is usually intended to protect its members. Is that a "good" thing? OK, imagine a teacher's union fighting to protect a job of John Doe, a member. Will you reflexively say that this is a "good" thing? Aren't you missing important context? What if John Doe is suspected of being a child molester? Still a good thing? After all, the union is meant to protect interests of teachers, not children. For a slightly more absurd version, imagine a hypothetical Union of Terrestrial Network Workers trying to ban all sorts of wireless Internet: Wi-Fi, 5G, Starlink, or at least put heavy taxation on them. The absence of cables is stealing their jobs, because radio waves don't need nearly as much qualified maintenance. It is also harder to cut wireless Internet in case of a strike action. In what sense would that be "good" for anyone but their own members? In some contexts, a union can be a good thing, but it is fundamentally a self-interested cartel. It shouldn't be put into the same box with "really good things" such as cancer treatments or indoor plumbing.
• mattas 2y ago
  Yes. Not just the physical assets, but the data, too. My favorite example is with rail ports. To pick up a container at a rail yard, the truck driver needs a pickup number. The pickup number is associated to the container and is shared (often times on a piece of paper) when the driver checks in. The pickup number needs to make its way from the cargo owner to the truck driver. How does this happen? Rail carriers issue the pickup number to cargo owners via email when the train arrives. Cargo owners email it to a freight forwarder. The freight forwarder emails it to the broker. The broker emails to the trucking company. The trucking company emails it or texts it to the driver. This needs to happen in less than 2 days, else someone along that chain is on the hook to pay a storage fee to the rail yard.
  • superice 2y ago
    You should look into Secure Container Release, Certified PickUp, Secure Chain, and a whole bunch of other initiatives doing this. Here is the Dutch one: https://www.portbase.com/en/programs/secure-chain/ https://www.portbase.com/en/programs/secure-chain/
• jjk166 2y ago
  The article notes that many automated ports are poor performers productivity-wise and presents this as evidence that automation doesn't increase productivity. However, it stands to reason that ports already suffering from low productivity would be the most inclined to adopt automation. I think it's safe to say automation is not a silver bullet that will cause a port to jump from the bottom to the top of the rankings, but that doesn't mean these ports wouldn't be worse off without the improvements they've made. Also while the article champions various process improvements to make ports more efficient that don't strictly require automation, it's not an either/or scenario. Implementing automation can make it easier to implement process improvements like scheduling, and process improvements which reduce variability make automation less expensive and more capable. It makes sense to pursue both in parallel.
  • mistrial9 2y ago
    useful line of thinking here.. this approach also reveals a fundamental part of negotiations.. are people interested in seeing an approach? and willing to put up with small failures and setbacks to get to a desired approach? ask that for both sides. call them "automators" .. those who want more robots, all the time, at any cost(?) due to the bright and shiny robot future they make.. and/or the "john henry"s so to speak.. humans and their allies.. people who make a living, have property and are part of families, schools and communities.. elect representatives into social groups that have a seat at the table.. long-term humans that live and thrive On another hand, pure "economic determinism" about efficiency and quarterly results, that is included in this topic.. but some might say that those economic determinism people have a lot to answer for in an age of inappropriately priced fossil fuels, availability of credit in large amounts for unequal reasons, a system of law and associated prices that assume an infinite natural world to use up in any way, shape or form. etc.
  • bluGill 2y ago
    Autometion generally starts with high labor costs which poductivity is not really a measure of. Sometimes it is about safety or no strikes, but normaly wages. Once automation works it often is more productive but not always.
  • bsder 2y ago
• VoodooJuJu 2y ago
  I find this dockworker strike interesting because it's forcing people to re-evaluate their principles and beliefs about workers' rights and unions. >yass! go labor unions! strike! power to the workers! >NO, NOT LIKE THAT! Some questions for those struggling with this: - How will you reconcile your unconditional love for unions and laborers with the fact that you do not approve of what this labor union is striking against? - Given that you believe these workers' complaints are invalid, will you continue to support the proliferation of unions? - If you've deemed the complaints of a labor union to be invalid, what do you think should happen in that case? Would you like to see the union dissolved? - Would you like to see "shell unions" that severely limit the power of the plebeians but still look good on paper because it's a union and "union == good"?
  • partiallypro 2y ago
    Unions have their place, but I would argue that any heavy concentration of power (this obviously also applies to corporations) is bad. There absolutely no reason an entity should exist that can on a whim shut down the entire east coast/gulf shipping industry.
• la64710 2y ago
  The one basic principle to automate can be that automation should be used as a means to supplement human productivity , but if it replace the basic livelihoods of human beings then it should be taxed and the proceeds distributed as UBI. After all what is the point of automation of it ends up causing suffering for us?
  • five_lights 2y ago
    This is a tough one, and I think is a bug of the current system, and only serves to hold us back. I'd like to think that one day we'll reach the point where UBI is practical. We're not there yet, and we need to do more in the interim offset the impacts of automation to workers losing their livelihoods as a result. These workers, in particular, I think would be the most ideal candidates to make and monitor this automation. Send them to college part time to learn the skills they need for this. Re-training programs to teach them new skills to make a horizontal (or upward) shift in the workforce seems like a no brainer. Problem is, who's going to front the capitol for this? If we forgo automation at the ports, it will impede the potential cost savings of shipping goods into the US, making importing goods less attractive to everyone involved. Re-training can be expensive as well, who's going to front the capitol to pay a mid-career worker with a family a similar salary to re-train? Our system has failed horribly with this, and it needs to come up with something as more and more jobs are sought to be automated out of existence. There's no reason why we should have to avoid technical progress just to make sure people can keep collecting a paycheck.
    • la64710 2y ago
      I don’t think re-educating the affected workers will work for everyone. We need to acknowledge everyone is not used to adapting to continuously changing technology as a frontend developer is. Also everyone has a threshold of complexity beyond which they may find it difficult to comprehend something. It is not a handicap it is just the normal state of things. As humans we need to accept our strengths and weakness.
      • rangestransform 2y ago
• Workaccount2 2y ago
  The article talks a lot about automated ports, but I am wondering what the variation in these automated ports is? Surely a port built today from the ground up with automation in mind would outperform a port that was retrofitted 20 years ago? Or a port that was upgraded today performing much better than when it was first automated 20 years ago?
• renewiltord 2y ago
  The best part about the unions is there are 50k on strike for 25k jobs. How? Because we already paid off 25k of them so that we could do containerization. That's how it goes. You pay the danegeld and you get more Vikings.
• nfriedly 2y ago
  Are there any businesses that both have unions and grant employees equity? If so, can the employees transfer their equity to the union, perhaps in lieu of paying dues? I feel like it could be a good way to align incentives, but I'm not sure it's actually feasible in the US. I suppose unions at public companies could always just buy the stock regardless of employee equity grants.
  • Therenas 2y ago
    Wouldn‘t that be the opposite of aligning incentives? Unions want the workers to do well, stockholders want the company to do well. The company paying people less is better for stockholders, worse for employees obviously. So that seems like an awful idea.
    • DylanDmitri 2y ago
      The union could hold shares in a trust, pledging not to sell. Then vote with the shares, and distribute any dividends through to the workers.
      • gruez 2y ago
        How does that fix the issue? For every marginal dollar the workers would rather receive the entirety of that (through wages) than for that same dollar to be paid out as profit to shareholders, of which they'd only get a fraction.
      • nocoiner 2y ago
        I think you’ve just invented the ESOP.
    • rank0 2y ago
      I encourage you to read up on the history on unions. People on this site have this insane idea that $CORP=bad and $UNION=good. The truth is that neither party is inherent good/bad. Unions can and have done plenty of shady things. Union leadership can be primarily self-interested (just like any other individuals). Employees with equity shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing!
• KolmogorovComp 2y ago
  Who or what does not need more automation?
• option 2y ago
  yes
• breakingrules3 2y ago
  what a stupid question
• kelseyfrog 2y ago
  We should back up and ask, "Why do we have an economy?" If the response is to benefit people, then actions which benefit the economy at the expense of benefiting people are misaligned to our goals. It's an alignment problem and boy if we can't solve this, then I have some bad news for you regarding the next 30 years.
  • golemiprague 2y ago
    [dead]
  • pjfin123 2y ago
    Are you saying more automation or less automation would benefit people?
  • ta1243 2y ago
    We have the economy to get the maximum output for the minimum input Having 100 people working doing something that could be automated is bad for mankind. It's a total waste. Might as well have them digging a hole then filling it back in. The problem is that we don't allow for changing work requirements, both on an individual basis with retraining into jobs of equivalent satisfaction and compensation, but also into keeping areas which lose their industry relevant. This causes people to blame the automation. It's nothing new, in the past workers who felt their livelihood threatened by automation flung their wooden shoes, called 'sabots', into the machines to stop them. ...Hence the word 'sabotage'.
    • kelseyfrog 2y ago
      I was told by a sibling that economies are a natural phenomenon so I have to conclude they don't have a telos. How do you resolve the conflict?
  • marinmania 2y ago
    It's not an alignment problem, it's a distribution problem. Automated ports would acutely hurt a very small group of people and help all other people a small amount.
• nostrademons 2y ago
  The metric used in this article is likely different than the metric that the port operators care about. The article was measuring productivity by turnaround time for ships. The port operator probably cares most about operating costs. Excess turnaround time for ships is a cost born by the shipping line (and consumer), and it is unlikely to affect whether people choose a given port because geographic concerns dominate most. The goal of the port operator is explicitly to lay off longshoremen so they don't have to pay inflated salaries. It is diametrically opposed to the union's goals in this regard, hence the dispute. The article largely acknowledge that automation succeeds in reducing the number of longshoremen required, which is its actual purpose. (It did question whether the reduced labor costs actually pay for the capital investment required, but didn't give any numbers. Since capital investment is a one-time cost but wages are a recurring cost, this calculation needs to be subjected to discounted cash flow analysis, which also requires that an interest rate be specified.)
  • partiallypro 2y ago
    In the ports in the US that have adopted some automation, it hasn't led to job losses. It actually increased throughput and required more workers.
  • ryathal 2y ago
    Faster turnaround also means more ships can be serviced which means more port fees collected which is good for the port operator.
• ThinkBeat 2y ago
  The US needs more unions.
  • azinman2 2y ago
    Would you prefer EZ pass lanes to disappear and everything be manual toll workers? I can say for sure the Golden Gate Bridge moves a lot faster now.
    • insane_dreamer 2y ago
      EZ pass lanes are not a good example because they require very few employees relative to the number of cars, at least on high-traffic roads like Golden Gate. So those can be eliminated without impacting a large number of jobs, and at significant benefit to all drivers. A better example would be replacing all baristas with robots, or truck drivers with self-driving trucks. Those would have massive negative impact on employment and society in general, while bringing huge returns to some lucky corporate winners, in effect a massive transfer of wealth from workers to shareholders. All that to say, the US definitely needs more unions.
      • azinman2 2y ago
        Per the article [1], the same ILA union president was previously against EZ Pass. Baristas provide a point of human contact and socialization which cannot be automated while preserving humanity. Truck driving can, and it’s an isolated job. Automating it would lower shipping costs, which lowers inflation, enables faster turnaround since robots don’t need to sleep, improve safety (theoretically) because robots don’t get tired and robots don’t take amphetamines to work crazy schedules, and can be programmed to respect speed limits etc. Now that said, truck driving is also an absolutely huge job source. To replace that would be to kill of a decent income for a huge percent of the population. More important than a union, we need to have government/policy handle any massive workforce transition. [1] https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/business/union-boss-harold-daggett-rages-against-e-zpass-for-costing-union-jobs-in-video-weeks-before-strike-shut-down-ports/ https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/business/union-boss-harold-dag...
• 39896880 2y ago
  This is a political problem that will sort itself out as the demographic that performs the work ages out.
• emmarh5 2y ago
  [dead]
• emmarh5 2y ago
  [dead]