That's the goal. The Jones Act guarantees a lot of American jobs and those workers are expensive. This allows US port-to-port shipping at much lower prices.
Good for the bottom line, bad for the worker.
back
5 comments
Jones act also guarantee lack of competition between shipyards. When companies MUST buy from you, there is no pressure to improve and you can set prices as you like.
Now US shipbuilding has been shielded from competition for so long, that any kind of permanent repeal of Jones act will mean instant bankruptcy of US ship builders. Similar to what happened in Eastern Europe after 1989. That shock of not being shielded by iron curtain from competition has caused implosion of whole industries.
US shipbuilding basically doesn't exist as it is. Jones Act was the only thing (other than Navy contracts) keeping it on pathetic life support. The only possible (poor) case you could make is that it kept enough facilities and workers barely functional enough so you could mothball excess production and surge it if needed. I would eat my hat if we could surge production to anything meaningful today even if it meant survival of the nation.
Not that it did a great job, so I don't think it's going to be a huge loss on the shipbuilding front either way. The defense budget will simply pick up the subsidization slack, or we're be even more unable to field a Navy in the future. Likely both.
What will be interesting is how folks think they are going to be able to keep a merchant marine floating on the water? Are a bunch of US shipping companies going to start up, buy boats from Asia, and start employing American crews with American flagged vessels? Doubtful.
But again - Jones Act didn't really keep those goals going either way. I just hope it's replaced with something other than thoughts and prayers. There is absolutely a strong case to be made that shipping prices can justifiably be higher and paid for by the American consumer so that we can have a robust and independent merchant marine fleet only the US can control. I don't know how we get there, but I do know without it there is no such thing as sovereignty.
Ehh, doesn't this just merely rock the boat for a few years before the same uncompetitive pattern equilibriates in the expanded market? Makes no sense to me why say the subset of the earths economy within the iron curtain is say a constrained market lacking competition, but the subset of the universe's economy that takes place on the finite confines of planet earth isn't.
Not really, China has 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of US. See: https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/chinas-shipbuildi...
The problem with Iron curtain has been that you were not allowed to import stuff from the West unless you were specifically permitted to (i.e. military purposes). The ideology of Eastern block was to employ everyone, that caused low automation demand which caused high prices for goods. Furthermore lack of quality processes caused that products were expensive and also garbage. So after iron curtain fell you can buy cheap garbage from the east or expensive quality goods from the west.
That compounded with USSR imploding (losing market) and management of communist companies not being able to innovate because there was no demand for it and you got industries falling apart like Hindenburg.
Jones act has created exactly same trap. US shipbuilders are not being forced into innovation nor automation (so they can reduce labor costs) because they don't need to. And now with China eclipsing them 200 times, Jones act can't be repelled
Why are chinese shipbuilders incentivized to compete with eachother while US shipbuilders are not incentivized to compete with eachother? The answer is probably due to cartel behavior on the part of the american shipbuilders, which tends to happen in any industry that has coalesced into few enough players to get into a conference call. If the chinese are still innovating I would say it is because they are merely early in the inevitable march capitalism takes from smallholder to largeholder based industry. I would expect after several decades of mergers and acquisitions that the chinese shipbuilding industry begins to behave a lot like the American shipbuilding industry today, if they haven't already begun to do so.
> Why are chinese shipbuilders incentivized to compete with eachother while US shipbuilders are not incentivized to compete with eachother?
Chinese, Korean and Japanese shipyards compete in the global market. Construction Physics has done an excellent series of write-ups on the technological leaps America shipyards didn’t have to invest in because they were guaranteed their tiny pie.
> Good for the bottom line, bad for the worker
Bad for most workers. Good for a cabal. The Jones Act directly lead to the failure of American shipbuilding.
Say what?
Jones Act didn't kill American Shipbuilding, cost of American worker did.
However, whole reason for Jones Act is attempt to protect the American Merchant Marine. If you can't move things via water in wartime, you don't have an empire.
> If you can't move things via water in wartime, you don't have an empire.
Exactly, the feeble American shipbuilding industry has been an existential risk waiting to explode for a generation. But corruption and profits speak louder than national security here.
> Jones Act didn't kill American Shipbuilding, cost of American worker did
This has been studied to death. European shipyards have similar labor costs to a lot of America. They still build cheaper ships faster than we do. Same for Korea.
> If you can't move things via water in wartime, you don't have an empire
And yet here we are, entirely dependent on foreign shipyards for basically any meaningful production.
The Jones Act killed American shipping. It makes our shipyards uncompetitive. And it makes our waterways too expensive to ply because the only things one can legally float on them are uncompetitive, expensive ships.
>This has been studied to death. European shipyards have similar labor costs to a lot of America. They still build cheaper ships faster than we do. Same for Korea.
Europeans provide direct subsidy compared to American subsidy of just requiring certain ships to be built in America. Also, looking at recent trends, Europe has fallen out of favor as well with rise of Japan/Korea/China (https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/industrial-policy-lessons-shi...)
Also worth noting that Japan/Korea/China HEAVILY subsidize their ship building as well.
>And yet here we are, entirely dependent on foreign shipyards for basically any meaningful production.
Sure, because despite the subsidizes, economics was always going to make US ships unattractive.
>The Jones Act killed American shipping.
There is zero evidence that this did it because all evidence says if you repealed it, all shippers would just buy Chinese ships, flag them under flag of convenience and staff them all with overseas worker where they make 2000USD/yr.
BTW, there are Congressional proposals out there now called Ships for America Act (https://garamendi.house.gov/media/press-releases/garamendi-k...)
However, they are all just handing massive bags of money to shipbuilders. My guess is you have similar opposition.
>> The Jones Act killed American shipping.
> There is zero evidence that this did it because all evidence says if you repealed it, all shippers would just buy Chinese ships, flag them under flag of convenience and staff them all with overseas worker where they make 2000USD/yr.
You are both right, one in the long term, the other in the short term. The Jones act protected US shipbuilders from competition over a long term. Repealing it would expose them to extreme competition in the short term, when they suddenly need to compete with other shipyards on the open market.
There's probably no clean solution here. Repealing now would shake up the us market, some shipyards might close, others might scramble to catch up.
The thing is, if you wait 'till next year, it'll be worse. And the year after that even worse.
Meanwhile, compare eg the Netherlands with very high wages, punching far above its weight with Heerema, Mammoet, Damen, IHC, Boskalis, Van Oord, Allseas, Smit, and more. It's (mostly) illegal to operate their equipment in the US. Which makes all sorts of things more expensive than it should be. And american companies don't need to compete, don't need to even consider building heavy engineering hardware. The current situation is lose-lose.
(random example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvicq-kvVbw Heerema Sleipnir)
it didn't kill ship building, but it did shipping by ship within the US.
the US still ends up without a merchant marine, at least compared to if it di have ships moving between US ports and not just arriving at/leaving from US ports
The Jones Act guarantees very few American jobs because the greater economy has chosen to just bypass/forgo nearly all of the things it touches, rather than pay for Jones Act Compliant ships.
Specifically, the Jones Act guarantees trucking and freight rail jobs by making it unreasonable to transport goods by water.
It destroys far more American jobs in favor of a special interest group.