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

121–130 of 328 posts

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

#121

Post by hollerith »

decafninja wrote: post #118
toomuchtodo wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Winning is winning. History is written by the victors. Important to know who you’re playing against, and whether you’re playing by the same rules, and if the rules matter. It’s not great, but it is what it is. We must operate in a way based upon how the world is, not the way that we wish it was.

At this point, China is outdoing the West in so many ways, and rapidly catching up in the areas where it still lags. I’m not one to eagerly praise the CCP, but it’s hard to not see how China is progressing while the West lags more and more. The West plays nice as much as possible. China is playing to win.

>China is outdoing the West in so many ways, and rapidly catching up in the areas where it still lags.

I'm not seeing it. Chinese economic power and tech capacity might exceed US capacity in time, but I give it only p = .25 or so. China's descending into some sort of political chaos seems more likely.

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

#122

Post by roenxi »

cogman10 wrote: post #102
cyberax wrote: post #19

Earlier 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…

> 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 t…

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

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

#123

Post by roenxi »

ronjakoi wrote: post #97
cyberax wrote: post #19

Earlier 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…

I can assure you, shipyards here in Finland are just as, if not more, unionized.

It seems quite likely that Finish unions work differently to US ones. The legal details and organisational traditions matter.

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

#124

Post by toomuchtodo »

hollerith wrote: post #121
decafninja wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, China is outdoing the West in so many ways, and rapidly catching up in the areas where it still lags. I’m not one to eagerly praise the CCP, but it’s hard to not see how China is progressing while the West lags more and more. The West plays nice as much as possible. China is playing to win.

>China is outdoing the West in so many ways, and rapidly catching up in the areas where it still lags. I'm not seeing it. Chinese economic power and tech capacity might exceed US capacity in time, but I give it only p = .25 or so. China's descending into some sort of political chaos seems more likely.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/critical-technology-tracker

> Our research reveals that China has built the foundations to position itself as the world’s leading science and technology superpower, by establishing a sometimes stunning lead in high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains.

> China’s global lead extends to 37 out of 44 technologies that ASPI is now tracking, covering a range of crucial technology fields spanning defence, space, robotics, energy, the environment, biotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI), advanced materials and key quantum technology areas. The Critical Technology Tracker shows that, for some technologies, all of the world’s top 10 leading research institutions are based in China and are collectively generating nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country (most often the US). Notably, the Chinese Academy of Sciences ranks highly (and often first or second) across many of the 44 technologies included in the Critical Technology Tracker. We also see China’s efforts being bolstered through talent and knowledge import: one-fifth of its high-impact papers are being authored by researchers with postgraduate training in a Five-Eyes country. China’s lead is the product of deliberate design and long-term policy planning, as repeatedly outlined by Xi Jinping and his predecessors.

Emphasis mine.

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

#125

Post by arthurjj »

ronjakoi wrote: post #97
cyberax wrote: post #19

Earlier 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…

I can assure you, shipyards here in Finland are just as, if not more, unionized.

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-boilerm...

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

#126

Post by delfinom »

jahewson wrote: post #12
0xffff2 wrote: post #3

An interesting summary, but I don't think the article really answered the headline. In particular, I'm left wondering which is the bigger problem: Is it that the US ship builders aren't competent and have turned what should have been a fairly straightforward modification of an existing design into a huge boondoggle, or is it that the government requirements are poorly thought out and/or overly ambitious, resulting in…

> Is it that the US ship builders aren't competent Yes, they are woefully uncompetitive. They produce single-digit numbers of commercial oceangoing ships annually, at 2-4x the cost of elsewhere. It’s an industry on life support.

The same industry is currently crying they can't people to work the shipbuilding jobs. Heh

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

#127

Post by cyberax »

vlovich123 wrote: post #106
cyberax wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 A…

For what it’s worth American workers as a whole make ~20x what Turkish workers do. While American shipbuilders make more than the average while Turkish ones are closer to their average countrymen, the 20x discrepancy in salaries doesn’t seem limited to shipbuilding. So not sure about the characterization of “sucking on the teat of taxpayers” per se vs overall higher regulations and salaries in the US.

> For what it’s worth American workers as a whole make ~20x what Turkish workers do.

It's about 7x.

> 20x discrepancy in salaries

Not salaries. The end-product costs.

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

potato3732842 wrote: post #13
0xffff2 wrote: post #3

An interesting summary, but I don't think the article really answered the headline. In particular, I'm left wondering which is the bigger problem: Is it that the US ship builders aren't competent and have turned what should have been a fairly straightforward modification of an existing design into a huge boondoggle, or is it that the government requirements are poorly thought out and/or overly ambitious, resulting in…

Don't forget that RFPs for this sort of thing get massively stuffed with pork so they're doomed to be bloated even regardless of the quality of the contractor who does the implementation. They love including requirements that all but mandates a specific vendor's product because that vendor is a key employer in the district of some rep's who's vote they need or has a good lobbyist or whatever.

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by bumby »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #78
skhunted wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t think it’s coincidence that the American addiction to cheap shit coincides with lower union membership and a shrinking middle class.

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

#130

Post by cyberax »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #104
cyberax wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What industries? Steel? Protectionism. The US imports steel, and the protectionist regime almost killed the US steel: https://reason.com/2024/01/02/protectionism-ruined-u-s-steel... > Batteries? Protectionism. Solar? Protectionism. That's relatively new, and it _will_ lead to disaster. The US is already falling behind in battery tech compared to China and South Korea. > Autos? Protectionism. Aircraft? Protectionism…

China is winning because they are intentionally and directly investing in tech regardless of the financial circumstances. They don’t care about the profits, they are focused on the outcomes. They are doing what developed countries should be doing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025

> China is winning because they are intensely, directly investing in tech regardless of the financial circumstances.

Investment can (and often is) different from protectionism. Typically, investment provides time-limited grants or other forms of support. If a company misuses them, a global (or local) competitor will outpace it.

Protectionism ensures that companies are indefinitely protected from global competition, so they don't feel as pressed to improve.

Post reply on HN