> In fact, no existing U.S. shipyard has built a heavy > polar icebreaker since before 1970. What does since before mean?
The last polar icebreaker built in a US shipyard occurred in 1969 or earlier.
Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
71–80 of 328 posts
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#72> ... 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…
Yes, it’s tragic. Even if you consider the job losses. We’d be better off paying those same shipbuilders to do Sudoku puzzles, with HALF the money we save on the ships. A billion bucks per ship would go a LONG way.
I mean, ideally we could try to not suck at building ships economically, though. But that’s a lot harder to figure out given how it’s a political problem.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Unionized workers can be hired on a temporary basis. By cushy contracts this means that the amount of wealth extraction from workers is not as great as it is in other American industries.
> Unionized workers can be hired on a temporary basis
With these unions ("Boilermakers")? No chance. They can officially give their jobs to their _children_ upon retiring.
There is a waiting list for apprenticeships. You have to complete 8000 hours of apprenticeship, even if you are already qualified.
> By cushy contracts this means that the amount of wealth extraction from workers is not as great as it is in other American industries.
WA is ordering ferries at $1.5B per item. They cost 20 _times_ less if ordered from Turkey. This is not "wealth extraction from workers", this is "sucking on the teat of taxpayers".
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#74Does this say anything concerning about the US ability to produce warships? Scaling up shipbuilding in wartime demands skilled labour and construction facilities. To say nothing of the material inputs.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don't find this explanation satisfying. If the Jones Act of 1920 is at fault, how do we explain the timeline? The U.S. was a ship-building powerhouse at least through the 50s, if not through the 70s. Why was there a multi-generation lag between the Jones Act and its effects?
The rest of the world was in total shambles until 1960s. Europe was destroyed by two world wars. East Asia was an economic backwaters. Same was true about most of South America, and its advanced regions were underpopulated compared to US. Africa was and is Africa. There was simply no other place that could build stuff at scale.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#76Because it considers manufacturing to be something poor nations do, and prefers to extract wealth through printing reserve currency and other forms of financial trickery.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#77> 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…
The problem in the US is not just protectionism against other countries, is that it doesn't incentivize internal competition. Instead, the US gov will throw more money at existing big corporations which from that point on have no fear of smaller companies innovating.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Unionized workers can be hired on a temporary basis. By cushy contracts this means that the amount of wealth extraction from workers is not as great as it is in other American industries.
Hire who? There won't be other skilled people.
And cushy contracts mean products that are considerably more expensive. Pretty much the only unionized industries left are those where they are somehow protected from competition. That's because union products cost enough more to drive them out of the market.
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#79> In fact, no existing U.S. shipyard has built a heavy > polar icebreaker since before 1970. What does since before mean?
[deleted]
Re: Why the U.S. can't build icebreaking ships
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
What industries? Steel? Protectionism. Batteries? Protectionism. Solar? Protectionism. Autos? Protectionism. Aircraft? Protectionism. Agriculture? Protectionism. Why? Because efficiency is a tradeoff where you give up security and resiliency.
Service industries.
That’s because a huge portion of the service industry requires local people.