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

How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 531 posts

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#181

Post by UK-Al05 »

widdershins wrote: post #177
sefrost wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economic situation in the UK has become bizarre. I would recommend interested HNers to read up on the State Pension Triple Lock; and the various income tax cliff edges as some key examples. With respect to the income tax, it is possible for higher earning (not by US standards) employees to receive a bonus and actually take home less money than before they received the bonus. The triple lock is a politically motiv…

> With respect to the income tax, it is possible for higher earning (not by US standards) employees to receive a bonus and actually take home less money than before they received the bonus. What are you referring to here? Higher rates of income tax are only taken on the money earned over the band. So If you earn £50,271, you pay 20% on £50,270 and 40% on £1. Are you referring to some other kind of tax then? https://w…

After 100k, you get childcare benefit removed. This mean less money you pocket going from 99999 to 100k.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#182

Post by jansper39 »

KingTravis wrote: post #143

I've struggled to understand exactly why our productivity is so bad here and I feel that this really explains it quite well - over reliance in tried and tested methods coupled with a lack of capital investment - for example relying on push-carts in the yards rather than looking at whatever was a more automated approach. It's not necessarily a case of a "productivity puzzle" but rather a puzzle as to why business owne…

If the MD is able to buy himself a flash motor every year, perhaps he doesn't have any incentive to improve the efficiency. Sounds like he's doing alright.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#183

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #40
ggm wrote: post #2

The best time to try and fix this is 20 or 30 years ago, but absent a time machine, the next best time is now. Either you feel this kind of construction process is national-strategic and you ignore the cost over imports, or not. If you don't regard this as a core competency which should be kept in the national register, then sure, buy the ships from other places. But, don't come whining when the national-strategic in…

Every country should be able to defend itself, without reliance on allies, as a national priority. If this means building cars, ships, tanks, and planes, then that infrastructure should be built and maintained at taxpayers expense. Whats more, you need to have market forces within your own country so competition can deliver you the best products. You can't just fund one ship building company, you need to roll the dic…

This seems completely unrealistic nowadays, unless you are the size of China or the United States. The EU could also do this, but there seems to be currently only limited appetite for a more integrated EU.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#184

Post by otikik »

lm28469 wrote: post #152
thorin wrote: post #138

Same reason it got out of every other industry. It wasn't short-term profitable. After the 70s at least everything began moving to the private sector and there was no strategic thinking. This completed in the 90s and there was no reason for anyone to think that semi-conductors, minerals, even oil and gas now shouldn't be bought from a friend rather than being produced internally.

It's almost as if Europe entirely gave up sometime in the 70s. People used to have vision for the next 50+ years, now they care about the next 3-5 years because they know they'll bounce to another position. That's why everything is seemingly slowly crumbling away (healthcare, industries, culture, education), we're putting bandaids here and there to maintain the illusion but I think everyone can tell the general trend

3-5 years is "long term vision" now.

People plan quarter to quarter.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#185

Post by fennecbutt »

ben_w wrote: post #180
lm28469 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost as if Europe entirely gave up sometime in the 70s. People used to have vision for the next 50+ years, now they care about the next 3-5 years because they know they'll bounce to another position. That's why everything is seemingly slowly crumbling away (healthcare, industries, culture, education), we're putting bandaids here and there to maintain the illusion but I think everyone can tell the general trend

Europe as a whole didn't give up in the 1970s, but the 1970s was famously bad for the UK. That said, I think this was more a case of when the rot in the UK became visible rather than when it started; the British government hasn't been competent for a very long time, and still isn't. With the caveat that I'm not a historian and have only an amateur knowledge of the events, I'd say the problems set in even before the p…

Tbf if the government isn't united, the people aren't united either. And having lived here for almost 8 years now I can see that that's the case.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#186

Post by DecoySalamander »

palmotea wrote: post #86
hypeatei wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm of the opinion that things like shipbuilding don't really matter in times of war for countries with nuclear weapons. There would be dire consequences for anyone invading and/or blockading a nuclear armed country. A lot of people seem to yearn for the "good old days" where we built giant, tangible things that did cool stuff. That's fine, but the "national security" arguments ring hollow as you're basically saying…

> I'm of the opinion that things like shipbuilding don't really matter in times of war for countries with nuclear weapons. There would be dire consequences for anyone invading and/or blockading a nuclear armed country. The flaw in that annoyingly common logic is 1) countries are very reluctant to use nuclear weapons, and 2) any kind of nuclear escalation is an instant loss for your own side . I personally don't think…

> An autocratic one may use them when the leader is close to defeat as one last "f*ck you"

I don't think that could realistically work. The suicidal leader would need buy-in not only from the military command, but also from the numerous operators responsible for preparing and conducting the launches. Everyone involved would be presented wiath a choice between signing death sentenses for themselves and their loved ones or trying their luck with whatever enemy they were facing.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#187

Post by pjc50 »

ggm wrote: post #2

The best time to try and fix this is 20 or 30 years ago, but absent a time machine, the next best time is now. Either you feel this kind of construction process is national-strategic and you ignore the cost over imports, or not. If you don't regard this as a core competency which should be kept in the national register, then sure, buy the ships from other places. But, don't come whining when the national-strategic in…

If you're going to talk about Edinburgh (I could almost see the Tasman ferry from my house), may I introduce you to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_ferry_fiasco

"Originally intended to come into service in 2018 and 2019 respectively, both ferries have been delayed by over five years, and costs have more than quadrupled to £460 million"

The Scottish government tried to do what commentators here are saying is the "right thing", maintaining the last gasp of a dying shipbuilding industry, but it turns out that part of the reason they were dying was not actually being able to build ships on time and under budget.

How do you tell the difference between "maintaining a strategic industry" and "throwing taxpayer money into a lossmaking business with nothing to show for it"?

> In the immediate short term, buying hulls and laying them up might be wise

By "wise" you mean "expensive", right? Ships of all sizes require continuous maintenance to remain seaworthy.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#188

Post by cco »

stogot wrote: post #73
DrewADesign wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which, it should be noted, is not a common goal among unions. I’m a union metalworker in the US shipbuilding industry— our products are expensive, but in very high demand domestically and internationally. That’s true for various reasons, but in no small part because our quality is exceptional, and people regularly get fired for compromising it. Some unions do seem to strive to protect incompetence at all costs, but n…

How can union rules get crafted to keep the company in business, fire incompetence, and breed innovation, rather than self-perpetuation?

Typically you incorporate union representatives onto boards of companies, make the members shareholders etc. You tie incentive structures together.

Even so, I'm a reject your framing to a certain degree. Employees, and by extension labor unions, typically want to see the company they work at succeed. Labor always pays the price, e.g. forgoing wages during a strike.

And even when a deal is struck, employees often put the interest of the company ahead of their own, e.g. trading away already agreed upon wage increases in a labor contract in order to keep the company solvent.

Are there examples of both situations? Of course! I've seen both first hand, but it certainly isn't completely one or the other. Some companies have a good relationship with their unions, others are very antagonistic.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#189

Post by coldtea »

throwaway290 wrote: post #142
coldtea wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people are thinking just fine. With their wallets. Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so? After all they know they were actually elected because people were only given a couple of establishment approved choices, and in their naivety they happened to pick their side this time (after all they alternate between the two choices all the time). They also know they'll be fine…

> Why would they prioritize national interests? Because they were elected to do so? How about because they are human people like you and me. You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that? How about if they really screw people over they know there will be mass protests etc.

>How about because they are human people like you and me

Oh, sweet summer child.

>You don't think you are a bad guy who always does things only in your own interest right? So why do you think they are like that?

Because I wasn't promoted and passed all the exams of a system designed to promote sociopaths, party interests, and corporate/financial/M.I.C. interests, nor did I have the sociopathic self-selection to want to get to the highest offices of power.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#190

Post by pjc50 »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #40
ggm wrote: post #2

The best time to try and fix this is 20 or 30 years ago, but absent a time machine, the next best time is now. Either you feel this kind of construction process is national-strategic and you ignore the cost over imports, or not. If you don't regard this as a core competency which should be kept in the national register, then sure, buy the ships from other places. But, don't come whining when the national-strategic in…

Every country should be able to defend itself, without reliance on allies, as a national priority. If this means building cars, ships, tanks, and planes, then that infrastructure should be built and maintained at taxpayers expense. Whats more, you need to have market forces within your own country so competition can deliver you the best products. You can't just fund one ship building company, you need to roll the dic…

> Every country should be able to defend itself, without reliance on allies

This definitely wasn't true for the UK in WW2. Probably wasn't even true for WW1, especially if in both cases you count "UK" as "GB&NI" rather than the full British Empire of the time.

The only country which managed autarky+export during WW2 was the United States, due to having a large land area, all the required natural resources (except maybe rubber), but especially oil and food.

Defense autarky isn't possible for any European country except maybe Natural Fortress Switzerland.

Post reply on HN