Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 328 posts

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#31

Post by theropost »

cyberax wrote: post #19
quasse wrote: post #9

> 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 t…

> 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 i…

Yeah, it's a tough pill to swallow but honestly, the workforce as a whole is kinda coddled at this point. Most people don’t even realize they're being paid more than what they're actually worth. Like, we’re not really creating enough value or building enough stuff that justifies what we think we should be getting. The only reason our value holds up right now is probably cuz of the defense industry flexing its muscle to keep things stable.

But let’s be real, as other countries rise up and we start losing our grip as the top dog, we're gonna feel the pain. It could be a slow burn or maybe a faster crash, but either way, it's gonna suck. We’re gonna have to go through some serious hardship to get back to where we think we should be. Not based on what we think we deserve, but what we actually do.

And it’s kinda mixed messaging too, right? We somehow believe our labor is more valuable than others, but at the end of the day, it’s gonna come down to working harder. Longer hours, more back-breaking labor, real work, not just sitting in an office chair all day. We’re not entitled to cushy jobs forever, and things are gonna get a lot harder before they get better.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#32

Post by llamaimperative »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #21
quasse wrote: post #9

> 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 t…

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 Baha…

“Leading to good commercial results” is definitely not the rationale for the Jones Act.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#33

Post by m463 »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #21
quasse wrote: post #9

> 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 t…

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 Baha…

Isn't part of this that US vessels are not competitive on a global market because of taxation?

if you built and registered a ship in the US, wouldn't taxes be much more than say a ship registered in a small tax-advantageous country? (for a ship that basically wasn't in US 99.9% of the time)

Retirees do this with motorhomes - why register in california and pay all those taxes when you will be out of the state traveling all the time. Register in North Dakota or something and still drive the same route. (note taxes could be state income taxes because of residency, or vehicle registration taxes which are a % of vehicle value)

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#34

Post by llamaimperative »

mmooss wrote: post #14

> ... allowing the Coast Guard to buy icebreakers from Finland would likely save over a billion dollars per ship, as well as years of construction time How about we let Finland build the icebreakers, and we build something we're good at, like fighter planes? Then everyone gets the best and most efficiently built icebreakers and fighter planes, and all for much less money. There is no [edit: economic] logic to economi…

Well, there is “a logic,” whether you agree with it or not, that it’s strategically important even if commercially suboptimal for us to have a domestic shipbuilding capability.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#35

Post by stackskipton »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #30
stackskipton wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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.

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.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#36

Post by roywiggins »

cyberax wrote: post #24
mmooss wrote: post #14

> ... allowing the Coast Guard to buy icebreakers from Finland would likely save over a billion dollars per ship, as well as years of construction time How about we let Finland build the icebreakers, and we build something we're good at, like fighter planes? Then everyone gets the best and most efficiently built icebreakers and fighter planes, and all for much less money. There is no [edit: economic] logic to economi…

> How about we let Finland build the icebreakers We can't. Jones Act.

"The culprit here isn’t the Jones Act, but another protectionist shipbuilding law that requires Naval and Coast Guard ships to be built in U.S. shipyards. It’s possible to waive this requirement via presidential authorization[0], but there hasn’t appeared to be much interest in this."

[0] https://sixtydegreesnorth.substack.com/p/yes-the-us-coast-gu...

"In practice Congress would need to support such a plan by appropriating funds for the project."

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#37

Post by mmooss »

cyberax wrote: post #24
mmooss wrote: post #14

> ... allowing the Coast Guard to buy icebreakers from Finland would likely save over a billion dollars per ship, as well as years of construction time How about we let Finland build the icebreakers, and we build something we're good at, like fighter planes? Then everyone gets the best and most efficiently built icebreakers and fighter planes, and all for much less money. There is no [edit: economic] logic to economi…

> How about we let Finland build the icebreakers We can't. Jones Act.

We can change the law. It happens every day.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#39

Post by mmooss »

llamaimperative wrote: post #34
mmooss wrote: post #14

> ... allowing the Coast Guard to buy icebreakers from Finland would likely save over a billion dollars per ship, as well as years of construction time How about we let Finland build the icebreakers, and we build something we're good at, like fighter planes? Then everyone gets the best and most efficiently built icebreakers and fighter planes, and all for much less money. There is no [edit: economic] logic to economi…

Well, there is “a logic,” whether you agree with it or not, that it’s strategically important even if commercially suboptimal for us to have a domestic shipbuilding capability.

Yes, I meant economic logic. I updated my comment, thanks.

Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships

#40

Post by kazen44 »

9dev wrote: post #25
mmooss wrote: post #14

> ... allowing the Coast Guard to buy icebreakers from Finland would likely save over a billion dollars per ship, as well as years of construction time How about we let Finland build the icebreakers, and we build something we're good at, like fighter planes? Then everyone gets the best and most efficiently built icebreakers and fighter planes, and all for much less money. There is no [edit: economic] logic to economi…

> There is no logic to economic nationalism, other than as wealth transfer from taxpayers to a few wealthy people. It doesn’t have to be that way, and phrased a little more benevolent, economic sovereignty is a good thing. It’s for that reason the EU has invested a lot of money into Galileo instead of just using GPS. Or look at the Ariane rocket program. It mandates an absurdly complex manufacturing schedule with tho…

Having your own manufacturing and industrial base is also very, very important from a geopolitical perspective. (as european countries have come to realise after the invasion of ukraine).

you need your own industrial base to manufacture and develop the machinery you need to defend and project hard and soft power across the globe. Globalisation was supposed to "solve this issue" by making economies so interconnected that this would be no longer needed.

Sadly, we have learned that that simply does not hold up.

Post reply on HN