Chiming in with a little personal experience- I worked at the NASSCO shipyards in San Diego for a few years as a journeyman welder after the first .com crash nuked all the tech jobs. (Yay fallback...
Chiming in with a little personal experience- I worked at the NASSCO shipyards in San Diego for a few years as a journeyman welder after the first .com crash nuked all the tech jobs. (Yay fallback skills!)
It was an interesting experience, and if it weren't for the literal toxic work environment (as in, the metal fumes, etc inherent in welding) I would have stayed longer, despite the problems I list below. There were a lot of good people there, and a lot of folks both on the workline and in management were doing their best. But it was like the system was stacked against them at every level.
There were a lot of systemic issues that were visible, even at the low level I worked at. We'd have half-hearted guys give a 10-minute speech about the importance of 'Kaizen'... but no empowerment to actually make any changes.
Someone would come back after touring the exceptional Korean shipyards, and try to introduce the daily exercises and stretches... for about three days, no follow-through, no support from the system.
Lots of lip service to internal education, training, and skill training, but the reality was you were 'allowed' to go to training, after your full work shift, for no pay. The number of people that could do so were a few percent, tops, and most only went until they hit the minimum skill they needed for their job of the month at most.
Turnover was constant, and they had a huge problem getting enough workers at the time, so a large portion of the workforce commuted from TJ every day, which came with language and communication issues. On top of that, often border delays would mean half of your crew could be late/no show at any given day. And since you were only allowed a couple of those before getting fired, back to the employee churn... I spent a lot of time on the overnight shift, where all we did was fix mistakes from the first two day shifts. I can only imagine the cost overhead all of this introduced to the system. And yet the company utterly refused to pay better wages, or have any kind of retention program at all between projects. As a result, you'd work on a ship, it'd be finished, you'd be let go before it even entered sea trials, and maybe rehired when the next order came in. Of course, all of the best workers would be re-employed directly in .mil work, at the oil fields, or what have you, with the result being the broken system we have.
Something the article mentions that I really think hits home- countries that have excellent shipyards care. It is important is that intangible, cultural way that is hard to put your finger on, but is very clear that exists. There is literally none of that stateside, to our (IMO) great loss.
From the title I didn't think it would start back in clipper times. It's interesting to see similar persistent challenges over time with similar work around used each time and the question of will...
From the title I didn't think it would start back in clipper times. It's interesting to see similar persistent challenges over time with similar work around used each time and the question of will it be done again to finish on.
Protectionism is pernicious and truly destroys domestic industries in the long-run. Countries are always worse off when they try to protect local companies and sectors for misguided economic...
Protectionism is pernicious and truly destroys domestic industries in the long-run. Countries are always worse off when they try to protect local companies and sectors for misguided economic reasons. Marx and Engels even cited the American shipping industry as a cautionary tale of destroying a national industry with good intentions:
"On the Question of Free Trade"
"I am convinced that if America goes in for Free Trade, she will in 10 years have beaten England in the market of the world."
Protection is at best an endless screw, and you never know when you have done with it. By protecting one industry, you directly or indirectly hurt all others, and have therefore to protect them too. By so doing you again damage the industry that you first protected, and have to compensate it; but this compensation reacts, as before, on all other trades, and entitles them to redress, and so on ad infinitum. America, in this respect, offers us a striking example of the best way to kill an important industry by protectionism. In 1856, the total imports and exports by sea of the United State amounted to $641,604,850. Of this amount, 75.2 per cent were carried in American, and only 24.8 per cent in foreign vessels. British ocean steamers were already then encroaching upon American sailing vessels; yet, in 1860, of a total seagoing trade of $762,288,550, American vessels still carried 66.5 per cent.
The Civil War came on, and protection to American shipbuilding; and the latter plan was so successful that it has nearly completely driven the American flag from the high seas. In 1887, the total seagoing trade of the United States amounted to $1,408,502,979, but of this total only 13.8 per cent were carried in American, and 86.2 per cent in foreign bottoms. The goods carried by American ships amounted, in 1856, to $482,268,274; in 1860 to $507,247,757. In 1887, they had sunk to $194,356,746. Forty years ago, the American flag was the most dangerous rival of the British flag, and bade fair to outstrip it on the ocean; now it is nowhere. Protection to shipbuilding has killed both shipping and shipbuilding.
It's interesting they saw that happening all the way back then and we can look at the same issues today. Would you say that argument on protectionism as a destructive force holds over to...
It's interesting they saw that happening all the way back then and we can look at the same issues today. Would you say that argument on protectionism as a destructive force holds over to agriculture? It feels like an exception to that
Agriculture is and isn't an exception. I'd cite as an example, Lenin's ill-fated tariffs and export controls. While they did help the USSR collectivise farming and control the populace, there were...
Agriculture is and isn't an exception. I'd cite as an example, Lenin's ill-fated tariffs and export controls. While they did help the USSR collectivise farming and control the populace, there were widespread famines due to inefficient land use and production. Part of the idea with foreign competition is domestic manufacturers have to compete and improve or else they'll die. Trade barriers make it easier for domestic producers to perform poorly, and people just have to accept being poorer due to high prices and low quantities. European food is much more expensive than American food on average due to heritage protections for farmers (champagne, salume, cheese, etc).
That said, those are the economic arguments against protectionism. The national security arguments are different. The idea being "it would be better to be self-sufficient in case of war". That's an altogether different basis which has lead to things like chip manufacturing subsidies to promote semiconductor manufacturers outside of Taiwan. That's fine in theory, but the methods are critical. Domestic subsidies can encourage increased production (like corn overproduction in the US) while tariffs simply make a country poorer and generally fail to increase local production. There is also a true slippery slope with any kind of protectionism... It's very very hard to strike a balance between simply encouraging a domestic industry to protect against war versus going all-in and giving farmers everything they ask for.
I feel like this is a simplification to the point of being not really useful. There are other bubbly wines for sale in Europe, everyone calls them champagne even though they are not labeled like...
European food is much more expensive than American food on average due to heritage protections for farmers (champagne, salume, cheese, etc).
I feel like this is a simplification to the point of being not really useful. There are other bubbly wines for sale in Europe, everyone calls them champagne even though they are not labeled like that. These are also not that expensive. Same for cheeses. You can buy feta, and cheese that looks and smells like feta, but just doesn't have the label on it.
Overall, food might be slightly more expensive in Europe. But there are a variety of other reasons for that. Many of them have little to none to do with protectionism.
As you mention elsewhere, food standards are stricter. Even though, you can debate if it results in better quality products. It still will result in higher food prices overall. Restaurants being more expensive also has to do with things like higher base wages for staff.
That isn't to say that there are no issues that are the result of subsidizing farmers for decades. There are plenty, food prices just aren't really a good example as they are influenced by so many other factors.
Production and distribution make up the majority of food prices at grocers. You're right that there are generics that compete with protected labels like champagne, but European regulations are...
Production and distribution make up the majority of food prices at grocers.
You're right that there are generics that compete with protected labels like champagne, but European regulations are extremely burdensome and increase consumer prices across the board. Just analysing one category, EU wine regulations are crazy dense and clearly intended to favour certain well-established vineyards. Here are a few links in case you'd like to read about them:
I feel like you just replied to one aspect of what I said. Which might be my bad, I did just go along with the examples of champagne. The thing is though that these things you bring up as examples...
I feel like you just replied to one aspect of what I said. Which might be my bad, I did just go along with the examples of champagne. The thing is though that these things you bring up as examples are almost all luxury products. This is not to say that these are not more expensive compared to those in the US. It is just that for more generic food items, the situation is not as clear-cut. Which again makes it a simplification of a complex reality.
Even for the wine example you give, it is entirely possible that EU produced wines are more expensive due to regulations. That doesn't mean that all wine is expensive.
To be fair, for the Dutch supermarket, the first few entries are smaller bottles. But once we scroll past those, the 750ml bottles of wine are about the same price as Walmart's bottles of wine. In fact, it looks like the Dutch supermarket has a bigger selection of red wines available.
Which is exactly what I meant when I said that you are oversimplifying. Although maybe I should have phrased it slightly differently. I do feel like you are focussing too much on somewhat broad and possibly sweeping generalizations. And this in turn hurts the argument you are trying to make about protectionism and agriculture.
I am simplifying, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say European food is generally more expensive than American food due to over-regulation that favors certain domestic producers...
I am simplifying, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say European food is generally more expensive than American food due to over-regulation that favors certain domestic producers (via protectionism, etc).
This does not track with my experience moving from the middle US to Germany. In general groceries have been equally affordable if not better, here. Of course this is anecdotal and I'm sure there's...
This does not track with my experience moving from the middle US to Germany. In general groceries have been equally affordable if not better, here. Of course this is anecdotal and I'm sure there's a lot of variation within both the US and Europe, but I don't think it's sensible to just say "European groceries are more expensive" authoritatively without stronger evidence that this is broadly true, much less attributing this to particular European regulations without convincing evidence that those are actually causing higher grocery prices across a variety of grocery classes and European countries.
Look, this was the argument you made. One you made to further drive through a point about protectionism. I replied to point out that this is not a very solid argument. Because the food situation...
European food is much more expensive than American food on average due to heritage protections for farmers.
Look, this was the argument you made. One you made to further drive through a point about protectionism.
I replied to point out that this is not a very solid argument. Because the food situation in the EU is much more complex and nuanced.
Pointing to EU food prices as an example of why protectionism can backfire simply isn't a strong argument. And again, to be very clear, I am not saying protectionism is fine. There are other examples of the impact that agricultural protectionism has you could have used.
Your reply here feels more to me that you are now trying to "win" a sub argument. I'd rather have that you take it as the feedback on your overal argument.
You're right, my original statement should've used more qualifiers to better communicate my intent. I meant to say: European label protections are an example of a protectionist EU agricultural...
You're right, my original statement should've used more qualifiers to better communicate my intent. I meant to say: European label protections are anexample of a protectionist EU agricultural policy that cause higher prices.
What factors do you think play a role in the EU other than protectionist agricultural regulations? I'd consider many of the strict health regulations to function as protectionist policies, but I understand that's a secondary effect.
I'd still argue that overall prices are not that much higher and, besides luxury products, are generally explained by other factors as well. See also my previous comment where I compared red wine...
I'd still argue that overall prices are not that much higher and, besides luxury products, are generally explained by other factors as well. See also my previous comment where I compared red wine prices as a practical example of that.
Which, in turn, means these are really not that indicative of protectionist regulations having a negative effect.
A more applicable example would be the way farmers in the EU are subsidized in a way that has caused overproduction (butter mountains, wine lakes) in specific areas and also caused them to invest in ways that are not sustainable.
As well as related policies supporting farmers which are now backfiring as it creates enormous environmental strain and in some countries even has caused a deadlock between farming lobbies and environmental lobbies and policies.
A specific example would be the Dutch nitrogen crisis, which has seen farmers protest against strict government regulations aimed at reducing nitrogen emissions. These regulations are intended to meet EU environmental standards, but farmers argue that they will harm their livelihoods. The result is a deadlock between farming interests and environmental goals, leading to a political impasse.
Effectively, the desire to protect agriculture and the livelihood of farmers is in direct conflict with other goals of set out to improve environmental strain. Maybe put more succinctly, protectionist regulations have directly lead to very strong farming and agricultural lobbies, who have a disproportionate voice in future policies.
Does this hold over for all foods or just those with heritage protections seen as semi luxury goods? I imagine it could be similar to higher food standards raising costs but with justifiable...
European food is much more expensive than American food on average due to heritage protections for farmers (champagne, salume, cheese, etc).
Does this hold over for all foods or just those with heritage protections seen as semi luxury goods? I imagine it could be similar to higher food standards raising costs but with justifiable reasons if so. Then it would come down to whether those reasons are seen as "worth it" but that's a very different argument.
Interesting points regarding domestic subsidies. I know that was the original point of food stamps and that feels like a better targeted subsidy than single corn and soy subsidies since it allows for flexibility with changing consumer preferences. I imagine there's a lot of ways people have thought about how to improve those so I wont try to guess from half a world away.
caveat: I've not watched the video yet but it looks interesting so I'll have to wait til I next have wifi
Across the board, European food and restaurants are more expensive than American. European food standards can be more strict, but it's unclear how often they're actually higher quality. Sometimes...
Across the board, European food and restaurants are more expensive than American. European food standards can be more strict, but it's unclear how often they're actually higher quality. Sometimes the standards are just designed to favor domestic producers. Here's an article about some of the recent food inflation. Unfortunately it's a complicated issue, so most of the investigations are dense government and scientific reports.
You're also right about all the reasons to just give consumers more money. Cash benefits are really easy to administer, and they can be highly re-distributive since poor consumers benefit more. Farmers and companies really obviously prefer being directly given money to burn though (and sometimes they do make more sense).
Hoser is a great channel if you're interested in learning about international development!
Politics is still much the same. You can't easily fight market forces, even in non capitalist societies, but at the same time telling your district "pack it up, we're done here" has never been...
Politics is still much the same. You can't easily fight market forces, even in non capitalist societies, but at the same time telling your district "pack it up, we're done here" has never been popular.
Ideally societies would focus on better transitioning their workforce in situations like these, or at least having plans to assist them. In practice it's much more on the darwin side of things.
Obviously there are major repercussions for these losses though, and one of the more directly important ones is military as the whole world just realized.
Very interesting article, going into a lot of detail for the US situation and giving a lot of context. I think it might have benefitted from also looking at other western countries as the US is...
Very interesting article, going into a lot of detail for the US situation and giving a lot of context. I think it might have benefitted from also looking at other western countries as the US is not the only one struggling to be competitive in this area.
For example, I know that most Dutch ship building capacity also slowly has declined a lot. At least as far as bigger commercial ships go. I believe there are a few shipyards left that specialize in more niche markets for commercial ships. But most of the ship building that is done these days, as far as I know, is luxury ships where things like cost of labor is not as important.
If I am not mistaken the situation is very similar in the UK.
I am far from an expert on this, I am just writing this out based on bits and pieces I heard over the years. But I feel like the situation in the US is not that unique overall. Certainly not when it concerns the second half of the 20th century and the inability to compete based on labor costs.
Chiming in with a little personal experience- I worked at the NASSCO shipyards in San Diego for a few years as a journeyman welder after the first .com crash nuked all the tech jobs. (Yay fallback skills!)
It was an interesting experience, and if it weren't for the literal toxic work environment (as in, the metal fumes, etc inherent in welding) I would have stayed longer, despite the problems I list below. There were a lot of good people there, and a lot of folks both on the workline and in management were doing their best. But it was like the system was stacked against them at every level.
There were a lot of systemic issues that were visible, even at the low level I worked at. We'd have half-hearted guys give a 10-minute speech about the importance of 'Kaizen'... but no empowerment to actually make any changes.
Someone would come back after touring the exceptional Korean shipyards, and try to introduce the daily exercises and stretches... for about three days, no follow-through, no support from the system.
Lots of lip service to internal education, training, and skill training, but the reality was you were 'allowed' to go to training, after your full work shift, for no pay. The number of people that could do so were a few percent, tops, and most only went until they hit the minimum skill they needed for their job of the month at most.
Turnover was constant, and they had a huge problem getting enough workers at the time, so a large portion of the workforce commuted from TJ every day, which came with language and communication issues. On top of that, often border delays would mean half of your crew could be late/no show at any given day. And since you were only allowed a couple of those before getting fired, back to the employee churn... I spent a lot of time on the overnight shift, where all we did was fix mistakes from the first two day shifts. I can only imagine the cost overhead all of this introduced to the system. And yet the company utterly refused to pay better wages, or have any kind of retention program at all between projects. As a result, you'd work on a ship, it'd be finished, you'd be let go before it even entered sea trials, and maybe rehired when the next order came in. Of course, all of the best workers would be re-employed directly in .mil work, at the oil fields, or what have you, with the result being the broken system we have.
Something the article mentions that I really think hits home- countries that have excellent shipyards care. It is important is that intangible, cultural way that is hard to put your finger on, but is very clear that exists. There is literally none of that stateside, to our (IMO) great loss.
From the title I didn't think it would start back in clipper times. It's interesting to see similar persistent challenges over time with similar work around used each time and the question of will it be done again to finish on.
Protectionism is pernicious and truly destroys domestic industries in the long-run. Countries are always worse off when they try to protect local companies and sectors for misguided economic reasons. Marx and Engels even cited the American shipping industry as a cautionary tale of destroying a national industry with good intentions:
"On the Question of Free Trade"
It's interesting they saw that happening all the way back then and we can look at the same issues today. Would you say that argument on protectionism as a destructive force holds over to agriculture? It feels like an exception to that
Agriculture is and isn't an exception. I'd cite as an example, Lenin's ill-fated tariffs and export controls. While they did help the USSR collectivise farming and control the populace, there were widespread famines due to inefficient land use and production. Part of the idea with foreign competition is domestic manufacturers have to compete and improve or else they'll die. Trade barriers make it easier for domestic producers to perform poorly, and people just have to accept being poorer due to high prices and low quantities. European food is much more expensive than American food on average due to heritage protections for farmers (champagne, salume, cheese, etc).
That said, those are the economic arguments against protectionism. The national security arguments are different. The idea being "it would be better to be self-sufficient in case of war". That's an altogether different basis which has lead to things like chip manufacturing subsidies to promote semiconductor manufacturers outside of Taiwan. That's fine in theory, but the methods are critical. Domestic subsidies can encourage increased production (like corn overproduction in the US) while tariffs simply make a country poorer and generally fail to increase local production. There is also a true slippery slope with any kind of protectionism... It's very very hard to strike a balance between simply encouraging a domestic industry to protect against war versus going all-in and giving farmers everything they ask for.
I feel like this is a simplification to the point of being not really useful. There are other bubbly wines for sale in Europe, everyone calls them champagne even though they are not labeled like that. These are also not that expensive. Same for cheeses. You can buy feta, and cheese that looks and smells like feta, but just doesn't have the label on it.
Overall, food might be slightly more expensive in Europe. But there are a variety of other reasons for that. Many of them have little to none to do with protectionism.
As you mention elsewhere, food standards are stricter. Even though, you can debate if it results in better quality products. It still will result in higher food prices overall. Restaurants being more expensive also has to do with things like higher base wages for staff.
That isn't to say that there are no issues that are the result of subsidizing farmers for decades. There are plenty, food prices just aren't really a good example as they are influenced by so many other factors.
Production and distribution make up the majority of food prices at grocers.
You're right that there are generics that compete with protected labels like champagne, but European regulations are extremely burdensome and increase consumer prices across the board. Just analysing one category, EU wine regulations are crazy dense and clearly intended to favour certain well-established vineyards. Here are a few links in case you'd like to read about them:
I feel like you just replied to one aspect of what I said. Which might be my bad, I did just go along with the examples of champagne. The thing is though that these things you bring up as examples are almost all luxury products. This is not to say that these are not more expensive compared to those in the US. It is just that for more generic food items, the situation is not as clear-cut. Which again makes it a simplification of a complex reality.
Even for the wine example you give, it is entirely possible that EU produced wines are more expensive due to regulations. That doesn't mean that all wine is expensive.
For example, let's do a quick sanity check:
To be fair, for the Dutch supermarket, the first few entries are smaller bottles. But once we scroll past those, the 750ml bottles of wine are about the same price as Walmart's bottles of wine. In fact, it looks like the Dutch supermarket has a bigger selection of red wines available.
Which is exactly what I meant when I said that you are oversimplifying. Although maybe I should have phrased it slightly differently. I do feel like you are focussing too much on somewhat broad and possibly sweeping generalizations. And this in turn hurts the argument you are trying to make about protectionism and agriculture.
I am simplifying, but I don't think it's an oversimplification to say European food is generally more expensive than American food due to over-regulation that favors certain domestic producers (via protectionism, etc).
This does not track with my experience moving from the middle US to Germany. In general groceries have been equally affordable if not better, here. Of course this is anecdotal and I'm sure there's a lot of variation within both the US and Europe, but I don't think it's sensible to just say "European groceries are more expensive" authoritatively without stronger evidence that this is broadly true, much less attributing this to particular European regulations without convincing evidence that those are actually causing higher grocery prices across a variety of grocery classes and European countries.
Look, this was the argument you made. One you made to further drive through a point about protectionism.
I replied to point out that this is not a very solid argument. Because the food situation in the EU is much more complex and nuanced.
Pointing to EU food prices as an example of why protectionism can backfire simply isn't a strong argument. And again, to be very clear, I am not saying protectionism is fine. There are other examples of the impact that agricultural protectionism has you could have used.
Your reply here feels more to me that you are now trying to "win" a sub argument. I'd rather have that you take it as the feedback on your overal argument.
You're right, my original statement should've used more qualifiers to better communicate my intent. I meant to say: European label protections are an example of a protectionist EU agricultural policy that cause higher prices.
What factors do you think play a role in the EU other than protectionist agricultural regulations? I'd consider many of the strict health regulations to function as protectionist policies, but I understand that's a secondary effect.
I'd still argue that overall prices are not that much higher and, besides luxury products, are generally explained by other factors as well. See also my previous comment where I compared red wine prices as a practical example of that.
Which, in turn, means these are really not that indicative of protectionist regulations having a negative effect.
A more applicable example would be the way farmers in the EU are subsidized in a way that has caused overproduction (butter mountains, wine lakes) in specific areas and also caused them to invest in ways that are not sustainable.
As well as related policies supporting farmers which are now backfiring as it creates enormous environmental strain and in some countries even has caused a deadlock between farming lobbies and environmental lobbies and policies.
A specific example would be the Dutch nitrogen crisis, which has seen farmers protest against strict government regulations aimed at reducing nitrogen emissions. These regulations are intended to meet EU environmental standards, but farmers argue that they will harm their livelihoods. The result is a deadlock between farming interests and environmental goals, leading to a political impasse.
Effectively, the desire to protect agriculture and the livelihood of farmers is in direct conflict with other goals of set out to improve environmental strain. Maybe put more succinctly, protectionist regulations have directly lead to very strong farming and agricultural lobbies, who have a disproportionate voice in future policies.
Does this hold over for all foods or just those with heritage protections seen as semi luxury goods? I imagine it could be similar to higher food standards raising costs but with justifiable reasons if so. Then it would come down to whether those reasons are seen as "worth it" but that's a very different argument.
Interesting points regarding domestic subsidies. I know that was the original point of food stamps and that feels like a better targeted subsidy than single corn and soy subsidies since it allows for flexibility with changing consumer preferences. I imagine there's a lot of ways people have thought about how to improve those so I wont try to guess from half a world away.
caveat: I've not watched the video yet but it looks interesting so I'll have to wait til I next have wifi
Across the board, European food and restaurants are more expensive than American. European food standards can be more strict, but it's unclear how often they're actually higher quality. Sometimes the standards are just designed to favor domestic producers. Here's an article about some of the recent food inflation. Unfortunately it's a complicated issue, so most of the investigations are dense government and scientific reports.
You're also right about all the reasons to just give consumers more money. Cash benefits are really easy to administer, and they can be highly re-distributive since poor consumers benefit more. Farmers and companies really obviously prefer being directly given money to burn though (and sometimes they do make more sense).
Hoser is a great channel if you're interested in learning about international development!
Politics is still much the same. You can't easily fight market forces, even in non capitalist societies, but at the same time telling your district "pack it up, we're done here" has never been popular.
Ideally societies would focus on better transitioning their workforce in situations like these, or at least having plans to assist them. In practice it's much more on the darwin side of things.
Obviously there are major repercussions for these losses though, and one of the more directly important ones is military as the whole world just realized.
Wow. What a great read. Thank you for sharing.
There are a lot more deep dives like that on Construction Physics. I often share posts on Tildes from there.
Very interesting article, going into a lot of detail for the US situation and giving a lot of context. I think it might have benefitted from also looking at other western countries as the US is not the only one struggling to be competitive in this area.
For example, I know that most Dutch ship building capacity also slowly has declined a lot. At least as far as bigger commercial ships go. I believe there are a few shipyards left that specialize in more niche markets for commercial ships. But most of the ship building that is done these days, as far as I know, is luxury ships where things like cost of labor is not as important.
If I am not mistaken the situation is very similar in the UK.
I am far from an expert on this, I am just writing this out based on bits and pieces I heard over the years. But I feel like the situation in the US is not that unique overall. Certainly not when it concerns the second half of the 20th century and the inability to compete based on labor costs.