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

501–510 of 531 posts

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#501

Post by mike_hearn »

geysersam wrote: post #101
mike_hearn wrote: post #5

It's a good analysis but probably over-fixates on shipping specific factors. The UK also lost its car industry, its steel industry etc. The root cause in most industries is the same, there were just too many Labour supporters and the unions got too strong as a result. From the comments: > I can relate to British union rules being head-bangingly stupid. In the mid-1970's I worked on the night shift as a spot-welder on…

"Laborers wanted their fair slice of the pie so the bosses moved all industries and investments to Asia." "Why did the laborers do this?"

Bosses didn't move things to Asia. During this period British companies stayed in Britain and were outcompeted by Asian firms.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#502

Post by mike_hearn »

lmm wrote: post #493
mike_hearn wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that a work-to-rule is a dispute escalation tactic, one step down from a full-on strike. This was not routine activity. In the period where the British industries were wiped, that kind of tactic was being used routinely. The German unions were much less aggressively leftist than British unions.

UK labour-management relations were bad in that period, worse than in Germany, resulting in high levels of conflict and escalation. I don't think it's because the UK's unions were more aggressive though.

British unions were so aggressive there was serious fear of a communist revolution in those times, or a military coup to prevent one. They forced a three day week, rolling blackouts and an IMF bailout. Management doesn't deserve blame here, they were trying to keep their companies afloat in the face of people who were outright promoting Marxism and a government sympathetic to that / weak in the face of it.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41931869?seq=3

Sit-ins and factory occupations were inspired by the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (UCS) work-in led by Jimmy Airlie, Sam Barr and Jimmy Reid, all leading [Communist Part] members.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#503

Post by jack_tripper »

nradov wrote: post #487
jack_tripper wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The cynic in me says price increases are about setting up class boundaries and pushing people back into the necessary but less desirable factory/trade jobs of previous generations This makes absolutely no sense when you spend two seconds to think about the supply and demand. Case in point, college is free in Europe and that has led to the exact problem you fear: oversupply of college grads and devaluation of degrees…

European countries have used free college education as a technique to artificially hold down the youth unemployment rate. Full time students don't count as unemployed. The problem is eventually they graduate and then many still can't find a job, or they end up underemployed in a job that doesn't really require a college degree. At least they don't have huge student debts but this system is tremendously inefficient fo…

>At least they don't have huge student debts but this system is tremendously inefficient for the rest of society which has to pay the taxes.

Depending on which country, but yes it definitely can be very inefficient in the nations with super generous welfare states. I know people still being students well into their late 20s or even early 30s because why not, when government pays for your education and as a student you get a lot of discounts like free public transport, cheaper phone plans, free bank plans, laptop and travel discounts, etc, so then why bother with a bad jobs market with low wages and no more discounts when you can postpone the harsh reality of adulthood?

Hot take here, but honestly IMHO, the government's constant putting their thumbs on the economic free market scale via the overly generous welfare state has been doing more harm than good to society and will lead to a rude awakening for people when the system is not solvent anymore and will have to pull the rug from under them and you have a generation of people who grew up without the skills to survive without the state holding their hand every step of the way. I expect massive political turmoil, extremism and maybe wars.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#504

Post by varjag »

kelipso wrote: post #458
varjag wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am replying to you comment. Please. Your reply had nothing to do with the context of my comment. I in fact gave you a benefit of doubt that you're not just a very quantized LLM. As to the trustworthiness let's tally: - Khasavyurt Accords. Breached by Russia. - New START Treaty. Breached by Russia. - Armenian request under allied auspices of CSTO: not honored by Russia. - Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty, Budapest M…

You could come up with nitpicky stuff like this for any country. Sure, make yourself feel better about calling people bots and calling Putin crazy, but you’re just living in your own reality at this point.

Breaching 6 major peace treaties and alliances (that I just remember of) in span of 30 years is not nitpicking and no you can't come up with this for "any country". I also didn't call Putin crazy anywhere but feel like perhaps you come to the right conclusion yourself here.

China also ain't dumb. It would play along but there is no misunderstanding about the nature of any agreement with Russia.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#505

Post by coldtea »

Panzer04 wrote: post #199
coldtea wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Singapore is an island, too, and we don't need a national-strategic ship building industry. That's because it exists on the benevolence and because of the benefits of it existing to several third parties. If/when that balance stops, they could turn it into a failed state in a forthnight. Being this careless by relying on "friends" (in global politics? lol) is ok for a small place like Singapore that can't do anythi…

This can go round and round forever. It's not practical for most countries to have a viable industry in every so-called critical good across an economy. As another commenter noted, it's even less practical the more complex it gets because you need to be self-sufficient in the entire stack, not just parts of it. What good is fuel refining without oil? What good is shipbuilding without mines and smelters? Without the a…

>It's not practical for most countries to have a viable industry in every so-called critical good across an economy

Sure. The UK isn't "most countries", and shipbuilding is not any random "so-called critical" good.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#506

Post by coldtea »

eru wrote: post #486
coldtea wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Singapore is an island, too, and we don't need a national-strategic ship building industry. That's because it exists on the benevolence and because of the benefits of it existing to several third parties. If/when that balance stops, they could turn it into a failed state in a forthnight. Being this careless by relying on "friends" (in global politics? lol) is ok for a small place like Singapore that can't do anythi…

> If/when that balance stops, they could turn it into a failed state in a forthnight. You say that as if Singapore has no agency here. And you are under-estimating Singapore's resilience: after all just after independence we were close to the nightmare scenario you are trying to conjure. > Being this careless by relying on "friends" (in global politics? lol) is ok for a small place like Singapore that can't do anythi…

>You say that as if Singapore has no agency here

It doesn't.

>And you are under-estimating Singapore's resilience: after all just after independence we were close to the nightmare scenario you are trying to conjure.

And it didn't happen because some conditions regarding foreign forces balance prevented it. Not because of the "agency" of a barely nascent tiny nation.

>What does it matter that the UK was part of an Empire in the past? Singapore used to be part of the same empire.

The UK wasn't "part of an Empire", it was the creator, owner, and benefactor of the Empire. That's why it matters.

>And yes, keeping good relations with your allies is extremely important in global politics. This shouldn't be news

That's irrelevant, since its orthogonal.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#507

Post by coldtea »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #300
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…

>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). Australia has ranked choice voting and mandatory voting. What else could be done to “give” people more choices?

>Australia has ranked choice voting and mandatory voting. What else could be done to “give” people more choices?

None of the above are even close to giving people choices.

Australia has a seat-by-seat majority-based system that favors the bigger parties (HoR).

Choices come when there's direct proportional elections.

Choices come when you don't need campaign support, advertising budgets, rich sponsors to be elected.

When they media don't sway to their (owners) favorite parties and candidates.

When you're not elected on an huge laundry list of a program, and then left to do whatever and backtrack on any and all promises until the next election with no consequences.

When there are direct referendums for major issues, regularly, not just to change the constitution in rare cases.

And many many other things besides, those are just some big ones.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#508

Post by coldtea »

foldr wrote: post #271
coldtea wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wan…

Neither was Jeremy Corbyn, but he would have been Prime Minister if enough people had voted for him. Say what you will about him (I am not a fan), but he is not “establishment approved”.

That's why he "didn't pass all the tests" and was undermined both by the media and by his own parties, and various establishment interests.

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#509

Post by coldtea »

sachahjkl wrote: post #144
coldtea wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Sometimes the time to fix a thing in general (nevermind the "best time") has come and gone, and the rest is wishful thinking and platitudes like "the next best time is now".

yeah, you're right, better to sit on your hands and just sit it out idly

yeah, you're right, best to be delusional that you can fix something when you can't, instead of realistically evaluating your actual situation and finding a pragmatic solution

see how such dismissal can cut both ways?

Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry

#510

Post by varispeed »

alt227 wrote: post #426
varispeed wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People often miss: - Productivity is low, because the pay is low and from that comes everything else (thinking of paying the bills instead of the job, being seen as "cheap" by others etc.) - Nobody cares about "social status" if the pay is right. Status comes from pay. - There is some merit to that, but I think the real reason was outsourcing. Why invest at home if you can get the same or better cheaper from overseas…

The problem IMO is nothing to do with status or pay, specifically in the UK the issue is capitalism. Capitalism demands that companies show continous growth, or they are classed to be failing. The UK is very small on the world stage, and so inevitably all manufacturers come up against the need to export and grow beyond the UKs borders. This is when aquisitions and mergers from overseas corperations occur, and they ha…

It’s not capitalism in general; it’s the British flavour of it. In most capitalist countries, investing in the workforce is seen as a way to grow. In Britain, it’s seen as a threat to the social order. The class system turns economic policy into a tool of control.

For the British elite, an empowered, well-paid workforce isn’t progress - it’s an uprising. The economy is structured to keep labour cheap and dependent, so productivity stays low and ownership stays concentrated. Profits flow upward, wages stagnate, and the same people who caused the problem deliver lectures about “efficiency” and “global competition.”

So yes, foreign takeovers hollow industries out, but they only can because the domestic system rewards extraction over creation. The real disease is a ruling class that treats workers not as partners in growth but as a cost to be managed.

Post reply on HN