[HN Gopher] Do U.S. ports need more automation?
___________________________________________________________________
Do U.S. ports need more automation?
Author : gok
Score : 152 points
Date : 2024-10-08 12:57 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.construction-physics.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.construction-physics.com)
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| One thing abut cargo work is that it's always been at full scale
| since before anybody living was ever born.
|
| Ships have always been as big as they can be, and fewer people
| handle more (retail value) quicker per person than during less-
| bulky links in the supply chain.
|
| So fundamentally plenty of money is being made at the port,
| regardless of the state of automation, this boils down to the
| lowest priority until all the other elements leading up to the
| port are taken to a dramatically improved next level automation
| themselves.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Huh? Ships have been continually getting larger.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_container_ship...
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Because the upper bound on how big they can be has been
| getting larger.
| dhosek wrote:
| What OP is arguing is that each ship is built to the largest
| possible size at the time of its construction. There are
| plenty of external limitations at hand, e.g., the size of
| docking facilities, canal clearance, etc. that mean that a
| container ship can't get larger than X.
| hermitdev wrote:
| Exactly. There's literally classes of ships that are
| something "max". e.g. Panamax. Panamax ships are literally
| built to the absolute limit of what will fit through the
| locks at the Panama Canal. And yes, sometimes the locks get
| bigger, and the ships follow.
| Validark wrote:
| For the original commenter to be wrong you'd have to argue
| that they've been underutilizing what's possible in the state
| of the art. Looking at the Wikipedia page, I don't get that
| impression. It sounds like giant engines and equipment on the
| terminal side are the main limitations, and I assume those
| capabilities have increased over time. Maybe the original
| commenter is wrong, although I highly doubt that cargo
| technology has been underutilized unless the cost of state of
| the art is/was truly so astronomical such that it genuinely
| doesn't make financial sense.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| With crude oil tankers decades ago the indicators were the
| bigger the better financially, so that's what was done, and
| bigger ships were built and financial gains realized.
|
| It was only proven how big was too big once a few ultra-
| large had been built, and the point of diminishing returns
| had been exceeded enough so accurate math could finally be
| accomplished.
|
| Routine commercial operation has been scaled back decades
| ago to less than the max.
|
| Less than the max that is physically possible, focused now
| more accurately on better returns.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| The cargo container was invented in 1956. The industry
| completely changed in just a few years. Look up the "docklands"
| area in the UK for example.
|
| I'm reasonably certain people alive today were born before
| 1956.
| flerchin wrote:
| Very few people alive before 1956 are working today.
| s_dev wrote:
| Joe Biden is.
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| >Very few people alive before 1956 are working today.
|
| I resemble that remark ;)
|
| I am quite few people indeed.
|
| Starting a new company soon anyway, and it's going to take
| a lot more effort than just working there.
|
| Plus it does have something to do with automation and cargo
| subcontracting in my niche domain.
|
| >The industry completely changed in just a few years
|
| That does sound about right, IIRC it did only take from
| 1956 until about the mid-1980'a before containers were
| everywhere, a relatively few years when it comes to cargo
| operations.
| danesparza wrote:
| You are generalizing too much. The article is specifically
| about the efficiency of US ports (compared to ports around the
| world).
|
| The striking docker workers called a bit of attention to
| themselves this month ... and this article makes the
| interesting point that US dock workers are one of the least
| efficient in the world.
| languagehacker wrote:
| "Should we just fire all the people on strike at the ports" is
| how container shipping started in the first place
| chrisco255 wrote:
| No, some things just make sense. Having everything shipped in
| randomly sized containers is terribly inefficient.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > No, some things just make sense. Having everything shipped
| in randomly sized containers is terribly inefficient.
|
| That's half the value. The other half is that standardized
| containers dramatically reduce "shrinkage" at the port. Which
| was a longstanding problem.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Shrinkage was a workers benefit!
|
| I don't think normalizing petty theft is good, but taking
| away 'perks' is still unpopular. Imagine the riots we'd get
| if FAANG workers couldn't take snacks home with them?
| watershawl wrote:
| Yes, Peter Drucker(0) said that shipping containers were one of
| the greatest inventions of the last century
|
| 0) father of modern management and coiner of term "knowledge
| worker"
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Great only if your goal was to make things on one side of the
| planet, and ship it all to the other side of the planet. If
| that's your goal, then the invention of containers makes that
| so much easier. Should we have this goal? Is international
| shipping (at the scale we engage in it) a good thing? If it
| were (just for the sake of the argument) a bad thing, then
| containers would in fact be a horrible invention that enables
| a very bad thing to happen even more than it could otherwise.
| SllX wrote:
| Yes, domestic and international trade is a worthy human
| endeavor. Shipping containers are awesome.
|
| Shipping containers are also multimodal and are loaded up
| on trucks and rail cars at ports to be hauled away.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| agree - an example is container shipping into "food
| miles/km", as in South America fish and avacado shipped to
| the USA for a small change in price to the consumer.. Food
| miles is widely seen as out of control and makes no sense
| from fairly simple systems analysis
| zactato wrote:
| I thought it was also the Vietnam War
| pmorici wrote:
| Half the so called dock workers don't actually work. They sit at
| home and collect, "container royalties".
|
| https://nypost.com/2024/10/04/business/how-did-50k-dockworke...
| JoBrad wrote:
| If true, that seems a little nuts. Have any more info on this?
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| True in that container royalties is a thing, but stated so
| sensationally as to make it lying.
|
| You don't get royalties for nothing. All the references I
| have been able to find, say you have to work some amount
| based on Union agreements but somewhere between 700 and 1500
| hours per year, and you have to have worked at the port for
| at least 6 years. They seem to mostly be paid out as an end
| of year bonus. I haven't found anything that ballparks the
| amount so I have no clue how much money we are talking about.
| tivert wrote:
| > Half the so called dock workers don't actually work. They sit
| at home and collect, "container royalties".
|
| How dare they! Only wealthy capitalists should be permitted to
| do that!
|
| When there's some labor-saving innovation, labor is supposed to
| get kicked to the curb, and when the fuck cares what happens to
| them? The shareholders got theirs, and that's all that matters.
| It's just totally immoral that labor ever share the dividends
| of that innovation, that money _needs_ to _all_ go to the
| shareholders!
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| I agree, we and the union workers should vote in a government
| that helps people who lose their jobs to progress. After all,
| it's the job of a government, not a company, to serve the
| needs of the people.
| tivert wrote:
| > I agree, we and the union workers should vote in a
| government that helps people who lose their jobs to
| progress.
|
| You have an incorrect, oversimple model of politics (e.g.
| business interests have shown much more capability in
| influencing government on economic policy to suit their own
| goals than pretty much every other group, and there are a
| lot of reasons for that).
|
| You use "progress" in a really suspect way, like it's a
| line pointing one way. It's really about _whose progress it
| is_.
|
| etc.
|
| > After all, it's the job of a government, not a company,
| to serve the needs of the people.
|
| I disagree, and I think that idea is actually at the root
| of a lot of problems.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _> You have an incorrect, oversimple model of politics_
|
| I disagree, I believe I have a correct, appropriately
| complex model of politics. I guess our opinions cancel
| each other out, and we'll have to agree to disagree on
| this point, friend.
|
| _> business interests have shown much more capability in
| influencing government on economic policy to suit their
| own goals_
|
| I actually agree here: business is great at influencing
| policy in a way that suits their goals, but not
| necessarily in a way that suits the goals of society or
| individuals. The 2 goals are different, that's why we
| can't rely upon the former to achieve the goals of the
| latter.
|
| It's the goal of business to make money, it's the goal of
| unions and people to make sure people are taken care of,
| so unions and people should vote for a government that
| takes care of people.
|
| _> > After all, it's the job of a government, not a
| company, to serve the needs of the people._
|
| _> I disagree, and I think that idea is actually at the
| root of a lot of problems._
|
| That is a valid viewpoint. Another valid viewpoint is,
| thinking that idea is at the root of a lot of problems,
| is itself at the root of a lot of problems.
| Unfortunately, without any detail provided either way,
| all we have now is 2 conflicting, equally-valid
| viewpoints.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Do they ever work? The article notes that "as container ships
| have gotten larger, container volumes have often gotten less
| steady, with more peaks and troughs. Highly varying volumes
| might be more easily handled by a human labor force that can be
| scaled up and down as needed."
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > human labor force that can be scaled up and down as needed.
|
| Is that corporate speak for insecure employment?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| No, it seems like the comment you are responding to is
| specifically arguing that a "bench" may be needed (with
| workers getting paid) so that they are available during
| spikes in shipping volume.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Automation can be scaled up and down much more effectively
| than labor. You just turn off the machines when you don't
| need them and turn them back on when you do.
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Do you have a citation for this? The article makes a fairly
| compelling argument that the automation in ports is not
| flexible in its utilization and costs, and that humans
| actually are more scalable in this regard.
| dllthomas wrote:
| There's a social sense in which you're correct - the
| machine wasn't counting on that wage, didn't cancel plans
| to be available, etc...
|
| But from a financial perspective, most of the cost for the
| machines is probably in buying the machines, where most of
| the cost of the worker is probably hourly wage (or
| similar). Turning off the machines probably saves less
| money than sending the people home.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| Scale down and back up maybe, but scaling up past existing
| max capacity would require capital investment to buy
| additional robots or what have you
| fallingknife wrote:
| Scaling past existing max capacity at a port is a massive
| project whether or not they use human labor. It's not
| like those human laborers are taking the containers off
| the ships by hand...
| billy99k wrote:
| This is why they are striking against automation. Those 25K
| will be out of jobs. It's funny how conservative (anti-
| technology, stuck in the past, don't want to make anything
| efficient) labor unions end up being when it suits them.
|
| It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and Lyft
| for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to innovate and
| make it better for customers.
| causal wrote:
| You mean the remaining 25k will also be out of a job?
|
| The article linked above doesn't go into detail on what
| container royalties are, but it sounds like it was a
| protection from being laid off negotiated in the past.
|
| And in the context of AI so frequently discussed here,
| perhaps more workers will need those types of protections as
| automation takes hold elsewhere.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Everyone is in it for their own self interest.
|
| There are no liberals or conservatives. Their are people with
| lives that share common traits and a policy set that suits
| those traits best.
|
| Remember that Jesus (the generous saint of the needy) is the
| hero of conservatives and that liberals are the chief NIMBYs
| for affordable housing.
|
| Nobody has lifelong rigid beliefs, it's all a matter of
| convenience. Everyone is in it for themselves.
|
| *yes this is a generalization and you can find outliers. But
| don't let those outliers distract you from what is going on.
| consteval wrote:
| > It is the same with the cab companies. It took Uber and
| Lyft for them to lift a finger and actually attempt to
| innovate and make it better for customers
|
| This is a complete rewriting of history.
|
| The reason Uber "won" is because they operated on a loss. The
| reality is that running a Cab business typically has low
| overhead. You use phone lines, maybe a website, and then pay
| for cars and maintenance.
|
| Uber "innovated" the field by doing the exact same thing with
| MUCH higher operating costs. How did they provide a cheaper
| service then? That's the kicker, they never have. They just
| ate the loss.
|
| Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage. Uber
| can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they never
| turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year.
|
| And that's how they won.
|
| Of course, now Uber is actually more expensive than your
| average cab. Which makes complete sense when you consider
| calling someone's phone has got to be a lot cheaper than
| running one of the largest networks in the country.
|
| And, is it really more convenient to tap around as opposed to
| make a call or even just stick out your hand? Maybe. But I
| think when it's double the price, people won't feel this way.
| asdfasdf1 wrote:
| Uber/Lift won not by being cheaper, but because their fixed
| fare prevented the typical taxi scams
| consteval wrote:
| Again, this is a rewriting. I'm sure this played a role,
| but Uber fares are not actually fixed! There's no "per
| mile" rate, the algorithm is a complete black box! They
| won because they were cheaper for the consumer.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's an up front cost that doesn't magically change
| during the journey, and you can pay on the app. That
| alone was an amazing selling point.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Did you never take a cab pre Uber? It was a poor
| experience. At best it went ok. But you have to be
| constantly paying attention, know the local roads (when
| on vacation/business that didn't work, or even when it
| did, you are having to straight call out old boy for
| being a scummy scammer and taking the wrong streets),
| deal with the 'sorry the mileage ticker is broken' 'sorry
| I can't take credit cards' after saying they did at the
| start. Uber fixed a TON of that experience.
| freejazz wrote:
| I've seen Uber come up with the most outrageous routes to
| take me around NYC, so I don't think this is true at all
| w/r/t to being something that Uber "solved."
| eastbound wrote:
| No really, taxis were the first thieves of the world, on
| paar with politicians.
|
| Look, I went to Russia, I took Yandex Taxi. I went to
| Indonesia and took Grub. Whether you pay double of half
| is i consequential compared to "Yes I take credit cards"
| then "Oh my credit card apparatus doesn't work" then "Let
| me find an ATM for you, at your expense".
|
| The one brand than invested on marketing is for nothing
| in the death of the taxis; Everyone was wishing they'd
| disappear.
|
| The price was the cherry on the cake, the bottle of water
| was the finger to every awful taxi driver that has
| existed in history.
| cm2012 wrote:
| As someone who grew up in NYC, lol. Taxis were horrible
| and tried to rip you off at least 20% of the time. Ubers
| have a transparent rating mechanism and transparent
| pricing.
| acdha wrote:
| Uber has a rating mechanism. They do not have transparent
| pricing and have a history of building tools to
| misrepresent their activities to legal authorities so
| nobody can trust them not to play games with pricing at
| any time in the future.
|
| Better than cabs were 15 years ago but we should expect
| more transparency.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Also, because you actually know whether or not a vehicle
| is going to show up.
| freejazz wrote:
| In which city do you live?
| jen20 wrote:
| They won by not having a credit card machine that
| mysteriously broke at the end of your trip. Fixed fare
| was very late to Uber and Lyft.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Yeah that's nonsense. Uber/Lyft "won" because hailing a cab
| was - and still is - a shitty experience. The cab industry
| was unapologetically exploitative and I will Not. Shed.
| One. Tear. for it.
| consteval wrote:
| > because hailing a cab was - and still is - a shitty
| experience
|
| Consumer don't actually care that much about this. They
| care about price - they're very price sensitive. Uber WAS
| cheaper, so they won. The experience being better matters
| a little, but not much. And, again, it's not that much
| better! Certainly, I can catch a cab much faster than an
| Uber, and consumers are also time sensitive!
|
| > unapologetically exploitative
|
| As opposed to Uber, who categorizes all their employees
| as "gig" so they don't have to pay out benefits. And they
| don't take on any risk with the capital, the employees
| bring their own capital.
|
| Uber is extremely exploitative both to you, the consumer,
| and to workers. For you, you're not offered a fix rate.
| Your rate per mile varies by the minute and by who you
| are - not unlike a scammy Taxi. The difference is the
| Taxi's at least would sometimes not be scams and
| advertise a rate, this is not the case with Uber.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Consumers like knowing the price for a trip before taking
| it so they can decide if it's worth it or not.
|
| I have no problem with variable pricing, provided it's
| stated before I agree to pay, not after. It can't be a
| scam if customers have full information before they
| agree.
| consteval wrote:
| > It can't be a scam if customers have full information
| before they agree
|
| It absolutely can be, if customers don't know how that
| price is generated, which you don't. You agree but you
| don't have the full facts. Your friend could be paying
| half and you're getting ripped off.
|
| And, to be clear, many taxis before Uber did actually
| advertise their rates. This is the same situation then,
| but even better, because you know your rate isn't for
| you, it's for everyone.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| How the price is determined is irrelevant in my mind.
|
| If you know the price, you can choose to accept it or
| not.
|
| I never took a taxi with posted trip cost. Best was price
| per mile/time and the cabbies wouldn't tell you how for
| or long it would take
| kevstev wrote:
| | Consumer don't actually care that much about this. They
| care about price - they're very price sensitive. Uber WAS
| cheaper, so they won. The experience being better matters
| a little, but not much. And, again, it's not that much
| better! Certainly, I can catch a cab much faster than an
| Uber, and consumers are also time sensitive!
|
| You are rewriting history here. Most NYers have a story
| about a cab that either tried to take them for a ride and
| take a shitty route, charged them an exploitative fee to
| return their cellphone, had their credit card machine
| "break" until you insisted you didn't have any cash and
| it was either a CC card or you are getting out right
| now... etc. There was absolutely no accountability for
| them at all and Uber fixed this problem- getting a ride
| is now actually pleasurable and everything is negotiated
| up front with no haggling and a full paper trail.
|
| Your whole argument is ridiculous, not sure what your axe
| to grind against Uber is, but its clear you are not being
| objective here.
| hotspot_one wrote:
| The world is bigger than NYC, and even New York is bigger
| than NYC.
|
| you are right about Uber bringing accountability, but
| Europe solved that through regulation. NYC could have
| done that-- the right to run a cab is linked to owning a
| government-issued medallion-- but regulation is not the
| US way.
| jen20 wrote:
| Cabs in Europe are shit too, to be clear. New York
| probably has the _best_ taxi system in North America
| though.
| paddy_m wrote:
| And NY Cabs were actually generally trustworthy. Cabs
| were absolutely worse everywhere else in the US, with
| many more shenanigans.
| freejazz wrote:
| >You are rewriting history here. Most NYers have a story
| about a cab that either tried to take them for a ride and
| take a shitty route
|
| I've had Uber try to go through the Throggs Neck Bridge,
| over to the Triboro in order to take me to LIC from
| eastern Queens. Of course the Uber driver, who only spoke
| Chinese had no way of understanding why this was
| incredibly and obviously stupid.
| freejazz wrote:
| No it wasn't. I prefer to hail a cab any time I have the
| opportunity. Because of Uber, that's less and less
| frequent.
| billy99k wrote:
| "Cabbies, unfortunately, cannot work for a negative wage.
| Uber can pull that off then. And so, for 14 years, they
| never turned a profit. Losing hundreds of millions a year."
|
| I'm not even talking about the wage aspect of the business.
| Before Uber and Lyft, getting a cab was inconvenient.
| Mostly telephone or hailing it in-person. Uber and Lyft
| forced them to innovate. There are now apps available to
| get a cab in almost every major city.
|
| Why did it take the Uber/Lyft disruption to get something
| like this? Because the cab companies didn't need to compete
| and the unions kept this monopoly in place.
| ta1243 wrote:
| I got an uber the other day, had to wait 5 minutes for it.
| There were some taxis sat outside the station, but I chose
| uber because
|
| 1) I know it will take card. Last time I took a taxi the
| "card machine was broken" and "I'll drop you at an ATM"
|
| 2) I know I'll get a receipt, as a PDF, which I put into my
| expenses. Taxi drivers tend to be very grumpy about giving
| receipts
|
| 3) I know I won't get adverts - maybe this is just a New
| York thing, but last time I took a yellow cab in New York I
| was bombarded with adverts
|
| 4) I know I'll be going to the right place, without having
| communication difficulties and ending up at the wrong hotel
| or whatever
|
| Price doesn't come into it.
|
| And if uber can't gets its operational costs down below a
| taxi firm paying for a dispatcher and manager to handle
| paperwork etc, given the scale they operate at, then they
| really need their tech stack sorting.
| mike50 wrote:
| Cabs refused to innovate. Before Uber the process to obtain
| a cab meant using a phone to call a human to radio a driver
| in a vehicle. It was obvious in the year 2005 that booking
| through the internet was going to happen.
| partiallypro wrote:
| Speaking of cab companies/Lyft/Uber, etc now similar to
| striking unions, those companies have a vested interest to
| block public transit expansion because it's a direct
| competitor. It's always been like this; we have to balance
| things out and not give into regulatory capture.
| dauertewigkeit wrote:
| If they were the International Longshoremen Company, nobody
| would find anything objectionable about that. They just
| negotiated a good contract. Good for them.
| avalys wrote:
| Nonsense. The major difference is that port operators would
| be free to choose a _different_ company if they were unhappy
| with the terms offered.
| legitster wrote:
| Longshoreman unions are some of the most powerful and corrupt.
|
| Even if you are pro-union, they have a history of attacking or
| undercutting other unions. The port of Portland Oregon was
| bankrupted because of a slowdown that was organized over _two
| jobs_ they wanted to take from the electricians union.
|
| The former president of the ILWU refused to recognize the AFL-
| CIO. The ILA president has mob connections.
| falcolas wrote:
| That's a fairly thin article. The one note about how much these
| laid off workers are making is just an allegation aimed at less
| than 3% of the total number of laid off workers, not a value
| with any citations. It would help a lot if there were actual
| figures on how much the container royalties are.
|
| And while ongoing payments are unusual, it's still basically a
| severance package. Those dock workers no longer work at the
| docks because they were let go due to automation. Do they have
| other jobs? Probably. The article doesn't provide any info
| about that either.
|
| It is the NY Post though. So I'm not super surprised by the
| lack of substance, just allegations.
| frankharv wrote:
| Thin, Heck they did not even mention Norfolk Virginia.
|
| We have like 4 different ports here plus Wind Project took
| over the old NIT port.
| coin wrote:
| Just like The Jobs Bank program the UAW and the Detroit auto
| makers had in the 80s and 90s.
|
| https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/stellantis-uaw-lawsuit-...
|
| "The Jobs Bank, established by GM in the mid-80s and adopted by
| Ford and Chrysler due to pattern bargaining, generally
| prohibited the Detroit automakers from laying off employees,"
| the automaker said. "By the 2000s, Chrysler had over 2,000
| employees in the Jobs Bank at a staggering cost. These
| employees were on active payroll, but were not allowed to
| perform any production work."
|
| https://www.npr.org/2006/02/02/5185887/idled-auto-workers-ta...
|
| The Jobs Bank was set up by mutual agreement between U.S.
| automakers and the United Auto Workers union to protect workers
| from layoffs. Begun in the mid-1980s, the program is being
| tapped by thousands of workers. Many of those receiving checks
| do community service work or take courses. Others sit around,
| watching movies or doing crossword puzzles -- all while making
| $26 an hour or more.
| aaomidi wrote:
| On the other hand, layoffs shouldn't be free for companies.
| These are people who have specialized skills, have setup
| their families in these areas, have mortgages etc.
|
| What's the alternative here? An alternative I can think of is
| a much stronger unemployment program on the federal level so
| layoffs don't hurt the community. But this scheme not
| existing would've been devastating for the middle class.
|
| People in greater society are not really an elastic resource.
| la64710 wrote:
| A great alternative is to tax corporates on the increased
| productivity that they achieved through layoffs and then
| distribute the proceeds as UBI to the affected.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| "Ubi to the affected" is a contradiction of terms
| ForHackernews wrote:
| As opposed to software folks who are 100% nose to the
| grindstone all day, never yammering on internet forums...
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| Oh the horror, on-call employees get paid for being on-call.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| .. watching two City workers having a meeting at a property
| right now.. it took more than two months to do three small
| repairs on the City owned lot.. one right now.. This same City
| is quite wealthy from property taxes and other sources here in
| western US coastal town.. Do these two City employees "sit home
| and collect money" ? Does orchestrated, planned and persistent
| foot-dragging with extra benefits, fall into the same outrage
| category as "these so-called dock workers" ? Both sets are
| employees.. the names are different but the outcome seems
| similar somehow? difficult to reconcile that one is publicly
| shamed, while the other gets stronger and more entrenched over
| time.
| NDizzle wrote:
| Absolutely. Especially after listening to that one prick talk for
| more than a sentence.
| dhosek wrote:
| It seems to me that comparing Chinese ports to American ports is
| comparing very different things: I would imagine that the vast
| majority of the traffic at a Chinese port is export traffic while
| at an American port it's import traffic.1 Furthermore, thanks to
| centralized decision making, the interface between surface
| traffic and ship in China will inherently be more efficient than
| the same interface in the U.S. What I'm wondering is how do U.S.
| ports compare to, say, Europe or Canada where the situation would
| be more comparable.
|
| [?]
|
| 1. In fact, it occurs to me that loading the ship _should_ be
| faster /more efficient than unloading as there's not necessarily
| any reason to do any sorting beyond which ship a container goes
| on at the export point, while at the import point, there needs to
| be more direction of getting containers onto individual trucks
| and trains.
| SR2Z wrote:
| If you compare a port ANYWHERE to the US, odds are that it is
| more efficient. The US ranks last.
| rantingdemon wrote:
| Well not _last_ :).
|
| South African ports ranks last, apparently.
|
| https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2024-06-10-abysmal-r.
| ..
| Yeul wrote:
| I wonder if lack of competition is to blame for that.
|
| When you look at Europe each sea faring nation has at least
| one modern port that can facilitate the largest container
| ships. And Unions generally don't operate across borders so a
| strike can be broken by diverting traffic.
| superice wrote:
| That's not true in my experience. Loading outbound cargo is way
| more complex, since the stowage plan of the ship dictates where
| each container goes. Theoretically a lot of containers can be
| swapped as long as weight is similar, the container type is
| identical, and the port of discharge is the same. In practice
| it's still incredibly complex compared to just unloading stuff.
| While you may need to do less 'digging' on shore, the nitty
| gritty of the actual operations are way more complex than
| throwing some boxes ashore.
|
| Import cargo is annoying in that it is mostly random access on
| pickup. For pickup by train, barge, or feeder ship, a vast
| minority, you typically don't have cargo manifests until a day
| or two before pickup at best, so in practice this is also
| random access-ish. The customs processes are also trickier.
|
| My experience is mostly in Rotterdam and Antwerp, and I'd say
| the problems in the US probably don't have to do much with
| automation. Rotterdam and Antwerp have very different
| automation levels at the biggest container terminals, yet
| productivity is quite similar.
|
| There is lots of low hanging fruit in optimizing operations,
| like more collaborative stowage planning, simultaneous
| unloading and loading operations, and 'modal shifting' from
| road to rail and water combined with early preannouncement of
| manifests for trains and barges.
|
| Disclaimer: I'm in the business of consulting and building
| software for container terminals, so I'll generally be biased
| towards those solutions.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Unloading can be complex also I would think, in that you have
| to maintain balance on the ship so it doesn't list or even
| roll over. You can't just grab the nearest container with
| your crane.
| superice wrote:
| Yes, although that's the same for loading.
|
| As a general rule, container ships are unloaded tier-by-
| tier, breadth-first if you will, not shaft-by-shift (depth-
| first), so this is not much of a problem in practice.
|
| That does start to change if you want to do simultaneous
| loading and unloading operations, then you'd want to clear
| out a vertical shafts first so you can start loading
| operations as quickly as possible. Which is one of the many
| reasons dock workers hate that style of operations.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Clearly, should have used a queue instead of a stack!
| bee_rider wrote:
| I wonder if unloading is in some sense greedy, in a way
| that loading isn't. I have no justification for thinking
| so, just a gut feel.
| superice wrote:
| That's a pretty reasonable mental model. The only real
| requirement during unloading is ship stability, other
| than that just use max concurrency with all the cranes
| and equipment to max throughput. Even just on the crane
| level, you can just keep unloading stuff to shore, and
| wait until vehicles pick them up. If they are slow, just
| keep on unloading until they catch up. Chance of stalling
| ops is close to zero.
|
| Loading operations are much more variable, especially if
| your yard is not stacked well and you need to 'dig out'
| specific containers. If you run out of containers
| underneath your crane, your operations are stalled until
| the terminal vehicles catch up and bring you new boxes to
| load.
| Animats wrote:
| > Even just on the crane level, you can just keep
| unloading stuff to shore, and wait until vehicles pick
| them up. If they are slow, just keep on unloading until
| they catch up. Chance of stalling ops is close to zero.
|
| It's not done that way, much. When a container is taken
| off a ship, it's usually placed on something that moves -
| a truck chassis, a railroad car, or an AGV. If you
| clutter up the dock with containers, unloading will
| stall.
|
| Using human-driven trucks on the dock side: [1]
|
| Full automation with AGVs: [2]
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=youKZCUZGlw
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm_rlLyelQo
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| My understanding is that majority of non-raw exports are in
| shipping containers and those have to be shipped back. So I
| would expect counts of loaded and offloaded shipping containers
| to be roughly similar. Interestingly, there are some synergies
| there - if a truck / train brought a shipping container to the
| port it's more efficient to put one, potentially empty, back
| for transport compared to running an empty train / truck.
|
| Notably I am assuming that shipping containers survive a large
| number of trips and their total number is not growing fast.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > My understanding is that majority of non-raw exports are in
| shipping containers and those have to be shipped back.
|
| Not always, that's partly why shipping containers are so
| inexpensive to buy.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What I'm wondering is how do U.S. ports compare to, say,
| Europe or Canada where the situation would be more comparable_
|
| Did we read the same article? It's constantly calling out
| examples in Europe and Japan, with every data source citing
| global patterns, not limiting itself to China and America.
| fallingknife wrote:
| China is 63-37 exports to imports. US is 44-56. It's different,
| but it's not so drastically different that I think it would
| mean a totally different approach to automation is needed.
| wormlord wrote:
| > the video of Daggett threatening to "cripple" the entire
| economy, or the fact that Daggett is alleged to have connections
| to organized crime.
|
| Half of our economy is built around making as many people
| replaceable as possible so that their wages can be driven into
| the ground. Pearl clutching about people resisting downward
| social mobility by any means necessary is cringe. This put me off
| to the rest of the article.
| SR2Z wrote:
| Most port workers don't even work. They can have a little
| downward mobility, they've earned it.
| wormlord wrote:
| If you value people solely by their economic output then I am
| just going to immediately discard your opinion.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Where is this same energy for trust fund kids?
| consteval wrote:
| Port workers are physical laborers and therefore in our
| popular culture are perceived as stupid. Humans of lesser
| value.
|
| This inherent bias exists in all of us, whether we admit it
| or not. That's why we view knowledge workers getting paid
| more than they deserve in a MUCH different light than
| physical laborers getting paid more than they deserve.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Trust fund kids are just spending money that is already
| earned. They're not taxing future transactions.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Would you say the same thing about software engineers?
| Because it's likely just as true if not more so.
| sensanaty wrote:
| Your average dockworker is infinitely more valuable than
| trust fund nepo babies that sit on their ass all day playing
| with investor money opening up yet another useless AI startup
| that's going to crash within a year.
| FredPret wrote:
| > Half of our economy is built around making as many people
| replaceable as possible so that their wages can be driven into
| the ground
|
| Amusingly, this is both true and has the exact opposite effect
| of what you imply here.
|
| The data does not show a downward spiral of individual wages
| and wealth, and in fact shows quite the opposite. And this is
| driven by real economic growth, which is driven by tech, which
| is frequently deployed in the hopes of automating away some
| work.
|
| However, just from a first-principles point of view, more
| automation is better. We can't do things unintelligently just
| because that means more work. The goal is more wealth, not more
| work.
| wormlord wrote:
| > The data does not show a downward spiral of individual
| wages and wealth
|
| Not sure what data you are using. All data I have seen from
| the Federal Reserve and others show stagnant/negative wages
| accounting for inflation (since the 1970s). Not to mention
| the fact that key factors of social mobility like housing and
| education have outpaced wage growth drastically.
|
| > However, just from a first-principles point of view, more
| automation is better.
|
| I never said it wasn't. Automation is inevitable. However I
| am not going to complain about people smashing the machines
| meant to replace them. That is the only logical course of
| action for them, unless the government steps in with a free
| retraining program or someone else has unionized jobs lined
| up for them.
|
| My point is that the author takes capital owners acting in
| their own naked self-interest for granted, and whines about
| workers/union leaders doing the same. Either be consistent or
| admit that you have disdain for the working class.
| FredPret wrote:
| I completely agree that in a free market, the longshoremen
| are entitled to throwing whatever tantrum they like.
|
| Is that actually in their best interest? Opinions differ.
|
| By the way, here are some examples of what I mean:
|
| Real disposable income is up:
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0
|
| Real median personal income is up:
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
| wormlord wrote:
| I have some issues with CPI that are used in these
| charts. I don't mean to be like "argh this data disagrees
| with my worldview therefore it is bad!", but lots of
| people have made complaints about the CPI not showing the
| full picture.
|
| I dislike how CPI handles housing costs: "If a unit is
| owner-occupied, the BLS computes what it would cost to
| rent that home in the current housing market."
|
| This does not take into account quality of housing or
| things like closing costs or insurance payments.
|
| CPI also does not factor in things like pensions or
| benefits. So we are unable to see what proportion of
| people's money they are spending on things like their
| 401(k) which potentially would have been paid for by
| employers in the past.
|
| Education cost calculations are also not ideal:
|
| "Various types of student financial aid are also
| considered for eligible colleges. Loans or other types of
| deferred tuition are not eligible for pricing. Charges
| for room and board and textbooks are covered elsewhere in
| the CPI sample."
|
| And lastly, healthcare costs appear to not take into
| account deductibles:
|
| "The CE tracks consumer out-of-pocket spending on medical
| care, which is used to weight the medical care indexes.
| CE defines out-of-pocket medical spending as:
|
| patient payments made directly to retail establishments
| for medical goods and services; health insurance premiums
| paid for by the consumer, including Medicare Part B; and
| health insurance premiums deducted from employee
| paychecks."
|
| https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/owners-equivalent-
| rent-an...
|
| https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/college-
| tuition.htm#:~:te...
|
| https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/medical-
| care.htm#:~:text=...
| FredPret wrote:
| CPI is very tough to determine.
|
| For example, how do you calculate the CPI on computers?
| They're a million times better now, but are also cheaper.
| My Macbook is not the same product as my 486 from decades
| ago.
|
| This affects everything. Take medical care as you said.
| The outcomes there are much better than before, so how do
| we calculate inflation on medical expenses?
|
| If you provide a 10% better product/service for a 10%
| higher price, is that inflation? What if all of society
| gets richer and insists on the second, better version of
| your service as a minimum?
|
| If houses get bigger and nicer and our standards for "a
| house" go up over time, and houses also get more
| expensive, then what is the inflation on housing?
|
| I think they're genuinely doing their best with the CPI
| calcs, even though it's not possible to get a true
| number.
|
| Long story short though, life has gotten dramatically
| better in material terms, for everyone, especially the
| poor.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Ah yes, the poor, benefiting from the new corporate 'zero
| hour jobs' meaning you can't count on having hours next
| week or what your schedule will be other than that hours
| will be kept at less than full time to make sure you
| don't accidentally qualify for benefits.
|
| For 'the poor' tt was hard enough to juggle multiple
| 'part time' jobs that companies created to avoid full
| time benefits, but now multiple part time 'zero hour'
| jobs is ridiculous (especially when both expect you to
| work around/prioritize their non-consistent schedule you
| get last minute).
|
| Do you even know anyone who's 'the poor'?
| ProfessorLayton wrote:
| I too hated my last minute scheduling when I was working
| retail while in college, but it's also equally ridiculous
| that benefits like health insurance are tied to an
| employer in the first place.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Health insurance tied to an employer is a local maximum.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Huh, it sounds like better places to act would be:
|
| 1. Repealing the Foreign Dredge Act [1] (or amending it to be
| compatible with friendshoring);
|
| 2. Mandating truck appointment systems (maybe even a centrally-
| run one, at least for each coast); _and_
|
| 3. Moving to a 24/7 default for our nation's ports.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Dredge_Act_of_1906
| superice wrote:
| So about truck appointment systems, you should probably be
| thankful those are NOT the norm. Generally speaking container
| terminal operators and transport companies are antagonistic to
| eachother, since they are NOT in a direct business
| relationship. The truck transporter (or rail/barge transport
| companies) are hired either by the shipper directly, or by the
| shipping company, depending on whether you book a door-to-door
| or a port-to-port transport. This is also known as carrier
| haulage and merchant haulage. The container terminal generally
| works for the shipping line.
|
| Long story short: the container terminal will always opt to
| please their customer (shipping line) over their non-customer
| (trucking companies). Truck appointment systems are usually
| used to force transporters to smooth out peak times not in the
| name of efficiency, but rather to lower the amount of dock
| workers the container terminal needs to hire. The truck
| companies generally end up footing the bill for this, both in
| increased workload and in detention/demurrage costs because
| they can't get their containers out and back in time. This
| money goes directly into the pocket of both the shipping line
| and container terminals as this is typically something they
| make heavy profits on.
|
| Be very wary when container terminals and shipping lines start
| to push for centrally mandated appointment systems. They are
| much more consolidated than hinterland transport operators. I'm
| all for increasing efficiency but let's not even further
| increase market power for shipping lines and container
| terminals please.
| theptip wrote:
| > smooth out peak times not in the name of efficiency, but
| rather to lower the amount of dock workers the container
| terminal needs to hire.
|
| I'm confused. Efficiency means you don't need to hire as
| much, since your peak-to-trough ratio is lower. Or you can
| handle more load, if you were capacity-constrained.
|
| I don't get why this is framed as a secret "other reason".
|
| My understanding is that shipping is a competitive market, is
| this not the case? If it is you expect price decreases to be
| passed on to customers.
| superice wrote:
| Container terminals will take any minor efficiency win on
| their side, even if it comes at the cost of massive
| efficiency loss for truck transporters. It's optimizing for
| a local maximum. The market is structured in such a way
| that it is hard to correct for that, since the relation
| between trucking companies and container terminals is very
| indirect, and customers can't directly compare.
|
| Also while shipping is a competitive market, the market for
| ports is not. You're either in a location or not. There are
| not hundreds of container terminals in a single port in
| competition because of economies of scale.
|
| (The market for trucking companies IS competitive however,
| meaning that if you have to err on 'protecting' either
| party, you should probably pick that one)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _about truck appointment systems, you should probably be
| thankful those are NOT the norm_
|
| Sounds like you're arguing against a port-run appointment
| system versus a system _per se_. When I said centrally-
| managed I should have said federal. It strikes me as
| analogous to ATC.
| superice wrote:
| Agreed, with the asterisk that shipping companies and
| terminals will try to be the ones driving the government
| agendas on this. Government run does not necessarily equal
| neutral. But a neutral system I am generally in favor of.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _the asterisk that shipping companies and terminals
| will try to be the ones driving the government agendas on
| this_
|
| Which makes the present, in which the ILU's boss has
| almost turned being an asshole on the internet into an
| art form, politically expeditious.
| akira2501 wrote:
| ATC does not take appointments. Planes arrive early and
| late all the time. All ATC offers is _sequencing_ through
| protected airspaces. Your pilot is literally picking up
| their actual clearance on the ground right before engine
| start.
|
| Planes can declare emergencies, they can divert to
| alternative locations, turn around for maintenance issues.
| And this is just IFR flights. VFR flights can take off, and
| once outside of controlled airspace, can just fly mostly
| however they want.
|
| Your doctor takes appointments. That's a more apt analogy
| for what port appointments will create.
| _djo_ wrote:
| That's actually not true for airlines, which are the
| better analogy here. For airline traffic airports have
| slots, which are basically appointments, attached to
| fixed flight schedules.
|
| At the most congested airports slots are highly valuable,
| to the point where they're often listed separately as
| part of an airline's assets, and airlines will sometimes
| trade slots.
|
| Many countries will fine airlines if they miss their slot
| time for reasons that aren't related to emergencies or
| bad weather, as well as fine them for any other slot
| misuse such as hoarding, strategic cancellation, etc.
|
| Now, sure, it's not a case where if you miss the slot you
| can't land or take off. The airport and ATC will always
| try to accommodate flights no matter what. But it usually
| means fairly substantial delays to avoid impacting on
| other take off, landing, and gate slots.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Slots have a very wide time range so thinking of them as
| "appointments" is entirely misleading.
|
| Also airlines have been given waivers since the early
| 2000s because the FAA realized that they were simply
| operating empty "ghost flights" merely to keep their
| slots allocated to them. So we just give them waivers
| every year so they don't waste fuel on this stupidity.
|
| The ATC/FAA model is entirely inappropriate for ports.
| _djo_ wrote:
| That's not the case globally. Heathrow for instance has
| strict slot time ranges. As does Schiphol.
|
| Neither the UK nor the Netherlands choose to not enforce
| slot misuse. We're not talking only about the US and the
| FAA as examples here.
|
| Whether it's an appropriate model for ports and
| especially truck traffic at ports is a different topic,
| one I'm not qualified to speak on. I was just pointing
| out the misconception on how airline traffic at airports
| works and how it's certainly not just a first-come,
| first-served ad hoc model.
| coredog64 wrote:
| Slots aren't managed by ATC. They're typically managed by
| the airport as there's a whole host of facilities impacts
| to a slot, not just the airspace aspect.
| _djo_ wrote:
| I didn't say they were managed by ATC, I said the airport
| has slots.
|
| ATC's role is to help manage the reshuffling when slots
| are missed, because there's still finite landing and take
| off capacity at very busy airports.
|
| In both cases it's centrally managed, rather than a free
| for all.
| singleshot_ wrote:
| If ATC does not take appointments, they do give
| appointments. Useful search term is "expect further
| clearance." If all else (e.g. your radio) fails, you can
| plan to have that space reserved at the time indicated.
|
| I'd argue, of course, that when you file a plan, you're
| requesting an appointment.
| Animats wrote:
| "Long story short: the container terminal will always opt to
| please their customer (shipping line) over their non-customer
| (trucking companies)." Right.
|
| Here's a video from the trucker's viewpoint.[1]
|
| If the container terminal had to pay for the trucker's time
| from the moment they entered the queue to enter the port
| until they left the exit gate, there would be more active
| loading stations.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oweDU1toTcw
| underseacables wrote:
| What about repealing the Jones Act?
| nfriedly wrote:
| Why aren't there more US ship builders? It seems like there
| ought to be room for a profitable business, given that they
| have a huge advantage enshrined in federal law.
| lesuorac wrote:
| It sounds like there just aren't that many ships that need to
| be built.
|
| > [1] Looking at upcoming deliveries, 20 dredgers are
| expected to join the global fleet in 2021
|
| [1]: https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-
| insight...
| uhhh_maks wrote:
| We do need some icebreakers though!
|
| https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-the-us-cant-
| build...
| shrx wrote:
| Related discussion from last month: Why Can't the U.S. Build
| Ships? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41456073
| foota wrote:
| I think it's a fairly inconsistent business, for one. I
| wonder also if state protectionism is at pay. Washington
| State for example until recently was only considering in
| state ship builders to replace the ferry fleet
| pfdietz wrote:
| Is that constitutional?
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| It's an extremely competitive industry that has seen
| government funding as part of the industrial policy of
| several east Asian countries. Right now even Korea, one of
| the largest shipbuilding countries, is having trouble
| competing with the Chinese shipbuilding industry:
|
| >However, despite these significant contracts [above], the
| Korean shipbuilding industry is facing a growing sense of
| crisis. According to industry sources on Oct. 3, out of the
| 191 container ships of 7000TEU (1TEU = one 20-foot container)
| or more ordered this year, China took 177, accounting for
| 92.7%. This shift has been particularly evident in recent
| large-scale container ship orders by global shipping
| companies, which have increasingly favored Chinese shipyards
| over Korean ones.
|
| >The industry assesses that China is gaining the trust of
| global shipowners by successfully carrying out projects with
| low prices and quick delivery times. In fact, it is reported
| that there is no longer a significant difference in delivery
| schedules between Korea and China.[0]
|
| To be clear, Korea is still a major player in shipbuilding
| (basically tied with China) and based on an article from last
| year[1] it seems that they focus more on other ships besides
| 7000TEU. It is probably impossible for the US to enter this
| market in any reasonable time frame and it would need
| government support. Even Japan, which was the largest player
| in the shipbuilding industry for decades has lost its
| marketshare to Korea and China. The costs saved by not being
| subject to the Jones Act probably don't make up for the cost
| of those ships. In 2013, US container ships costed 5 times as
| much as foreign ones, and it's probably more than that
| now.[2] Maintenance is another factor.
|
| [0] https://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idx
| no=...
|
| [1] https://www.kedglobal.com/shipping-
| shipbuilding/newsView/ked...
|
| [2] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45725.pdf
| testcase_delta wrote:
| I wish the article dug in to the role that unionized labor plays
| in the productivity of US ports.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| >current ILA president Harold Daggett has complained about EZ
| passes for highway tolls eliminating union jobs.
|
| I mean that says it all right? I get union's pretty much exist to
| protect jobs, but it'd be comically inefficient to still require
| toll booth attendants in this day and age.
|
| And you can pretty much extrapolate this to every industry.
| Improving technology has always eliminated jobs, in pretty much
| every field.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| I think of there were honest, actually effective and humane
| means in place to get new, we'll payed jobs in the area for the
| folks in the union (or financial support for this those for who
| a career change isn't as easy for one reason or another) the
| automation would be seen quite differently.
|
| There is no such thing however, not really. Yes, the world
| doesn't owe these workers indefinite employment in a specific
| job. But reality also doesn't owe us or the employer a steady
| progression towards more efficiency, and workers can (and often
| will) organize against it of they stand to be hurt.
| consteval wrote:
| I think this is the big point that we, as a society, are
| missing.
|
| Take a look at Walmart greeters. Why does that job exist?
| It's pretty much worthless. Now look at who works the job:
| elderly people past retirement age, physically disabled
| people, mentally disabled people.
|
| Physical laborers often work a physical labor job for a
| reason. There's a reason they didn't go to college and sit at
| a comfy desk writing shitty websites.
|
| It's not as simple as "oh those people can just work another
| job!" Extrapolate this out. Say we eliminate all physical
| jobs; how many millions of people will be left behind? What
| happens to them? Do they die?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| This is a great argument for voting in the government most
| likely to support social assistance, e.g unemployment,
| retraining assistance, UBI, etc.
|
| Regardless of who you think that might be, Americans should
| make sure their voice is heard on this issue in the
| upcoming elections.
| consteval wrote:
| I agree, but these measures are extraordinarily unpopular
| with the American public. They won't be forever, but
| until then, we HAVE to keep around "useless" jobs.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| There is such a thing. Unemployed former dockworkers in the
| US get "container royalties" - fees that shipping companies
| pay to compensate dock workers laid off due to innovation.
| https://www.wsj.com/opinion/longshoremen-union-strike-
| ports-...
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| > the ILA demanded a complete ban on introducing new port
| automation
|
| _" The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of
| English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of
| automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and
| output quality."_ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
| zubiaur wrote:
| Automation messes up the flow of illegal drugs. The big stuff
| does not come in a backpack but in container ships/trucks.
|
| In LATAM, dock workers make sure this goes undetected. I know of
| an IE who was championing a dock worker scheduling optimization
| algo, typical Operations Management stuff. Dude was killed.
|
| I'd like to think that this kind of things do not happen here.
| But every time I've thought along those lines, I've been
| mistaken. It's just happens at a different scale.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| You'd think the union would keep it's head down then. Or they
| are just power drunk and want their cake while eating it too?
| underseacables wrote:
| Considering what can happen if you cross a union? I would
| imagine people keep their heads down and turn a blind eye
| Manuel_D wrote:
| They are in the position to hold critical infrastructure
| hostage, via a government mandated monopoly on labor. The
| ports can't just reject the union offer and employ non-union
| workers. Laws mandate that the ports can only hire union
| labor. The Union can, if it so desires, shut down most East
| coast ports until it gets its demands. They're not power
| drunk, they genuinely have the power to cause massive
| economic damage.
|
| Imagine halfway through a kitchen remodel, your contractor
| stops working and demands 70% more than the initial quote.
| But not only that, the government prohibits you from hiring a
| different contractor at market rates and forces you to
| negotiate with the original contractor. That's what union
| negotiations are like.
| johnnyanmac wrote:
| That's a weird metaphor considering the situation here was
| that a contract expired and they had months to negotiate.
| It's more like if you were in the middle of reworking your
| kitchen and while that was happening you were talking about
| doing the bedroom next for a cheaper cost. They said no but
| you thought you could get a bulk deal.
|
| Now add that to a bigger time scale and mass inflation
| happened between the batrhoom and he bedroom. They have to
| charge more just to keep buying power.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| The analogue to the kitchen remodel is that critical
| infrastructure is held hostage. Ports are prohibited, by
| law, from hiring non union port workers if they find the
| union's demands too onerous. This gives the union
| incredible leverage to harm the rest of society if their
| demands are not met.
| mistermann wrote:
| Imagine how people would react if their operating system
| was so hilariously incapable of managing its
| responsibilities.
|
| But when it comes to the management of the majority of our
| lives (the system we conduct our lives within, and
| according to), right thinking people _insist on_
| mediocrity.
|
| There are many paradoxes like this in the world, but for
| some reason it is not possible to get minds to focus on
| them. I wonder what the underlying cause of this is...
| _perhaps there is a causal relationship between the two
| phenomena in this case_?
| bumby wrote:
| That take is predicated on the assumption that the govt
| will always side with the union. Ask ATCs from the 1980s
| who the govt tends to side with when it comes to critical
| infrastructure.
| tacticalturtle wrote:
| The difference there was that PATCO was a union for
| government air traffic controllers. Every government
| employee swears an oath not to strike against the federal
| government:
|
| https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/sf61.pdf
|
| There were existing laws on the books to remove the
| striking ATCs.
|
| That's not the case with the ILA. The most they can do is
| block strikes for 80 days.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Ah yes, applying household analogues to national government
| issues.
|
| How about this: imagine you're a multi-billion dollar per
| annum organization openly researching how to put tens of
| thousands of your core workforce out of a career, and they
| ask for more money to protect their families and
| livelihood. And the government forces you to negotiate.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Even if they're put out of a career, they'll still be
| receiving container royalty payments until retirement
| (even if they get another job).
|
| More expensive shipping is a regressive tax: any product
| requiring shipping becomes more expensive. Dock workers
| are quite literally demanding worsening income
| inequality: they make well above average wages, and the
| cost of their demands would be borne by the public at
| large who on average make less than dock workers.
| Dracophoenix wrote:
| Look no further than the automobile industry!
| snapetom wrote:
| > Automation messes up the flow of illegal drugs.
|
| This is the real reason and one of the primary reasons
| productivity won't be optimized, especially at the LATAM ports.
| paganel wrote:
| It happens in Rotterdam, EU's biggest container port, so I'm
| pretty sure that it happens in the States, too.
| evantbyrne wrote:
| Salacious claims like this should always be backed up with
| verifiable info. In the absence of such, it is reasonable to
| assume inaccuracies from chains of communication or even
| deception-especially when coming from an anonymous source. Did
| you even know the guy?
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| How would automation mess up the flow of drugs. Wouldn't it
| make it easier, if no human was there to take a peek?
|
| Or are there ghost containers on ships, which are filled with
| drugs and not part of the manifest, that an automated system
| would flag but people with greased hands know to let it
| through?
| xav0989 wrote:
| Likely the second one, things like "take that container and
| drop it off on that truck, but don't log it"
| AdamJacobMuller wrote:
| Doesn't even have to be whole containers, whole containers
| would be harder to hide.
|
| Just divert the container to an area without cameras for a
| few minutes, pop it open and remove the kilos.
|
| In a manual world, nobody notices that the container takes
| 15 minutes longer to reach the storage area.
|
| In a manual world, nobody notices that the container
| suddenly became 100lbs lighter.
|
| In a manual world, nobody notices the GPS trace showing the
| container going behind the warehouse where the camera
| coverage is spotty.
| which wrote:
| This interpretation is at odds with what happens in Rotterdam
| aka cocaine ground zero (or is it Antwerp now?). It's the most
| automated port in the world. They still routinely bust port
| insiders who help crooks there.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-59379474
|
| https://www.vice.com/en/article/belgium-netherlands-cocaine-...
|
| https://www.occrp.org/en/project/narcofiles-the-new-criminal...
| standardUser wrote:
| The fact that we still waste fortunes pretending we can ban
| drugs, despite the drug trade preserving every single time
| without fail, irks me to no end.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Like a lot of nice-sounding but difficult things, it
| reaches "political exhaustion" and we end up with a half-
| assed "compromise" that's the worst of both worlds.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| If we follow the OP's point, a good port is one where
| insiders can be busted for facilitating drug traffic and a
| bad port is one where insiders get killed for trying to stop
| it.
| guywithahat wrote:
| I would argue OP's point is still valid since any kind of
| change is bad when you're smuggling drugs. If they automate
| everything, then all of the old systems no longer work, and
| any new system would require people working at much higher
| levels.
|
| The argument here is that the union is directly involved in
| drug smuggling, which is why some of the union reps live in
| multimillion dollar luxury homes. They're opposed to
| automation because it would mess up their system
| Yeul wrote:
| Actually an improvement. Nowadays each truck goes through a
| scanner before leaving the terminal. So they have to get to
| the drugs when it's still waiting for transport.
| antisthenes wrote:
| Interesting bad actor problems, whereas a union (which is
| typically a good thing) does a bad thing (25k job grift, making
| goods more expensive for everyone), and gives all unions a bad
| public image and weakens them as a result (bad thing, since it
| erodes worker leverage/rights in the long term)
|
| What's the proposed solution here?
| baggy_trough wrote:
| Recognizing that unions are not typically a good thing is the
| first step.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| In a 0 sum game, a bad thing for one group is a good thing
| for another group.
|
| Step 1 would be realizing what type of games unions promote.
| baggy_trough wrote:
| 0 sum would be an improvement.
| mattas wrote:
| Yes. Not just the physical assets, but the data, too.
|
| My favorite example is with rail ports. To pick up a container at
| a rail yard, the truck driver needs a pickup number. The pickup
| number is associated to the container and is shared (often times
| on a piece of paper) when the driver checks in.
|
| The pickup number needs to make its way from the cargo owner to
| the truck driver. How does this happen?
|
| Rail carriers issue the pickup number to cargo owners via email
| when the train arrives. Cargo owners email it to a freight
| forwarder. The freight forwarder emails it to the broker. The
| broker emails to the trucking company. The trucking company
| emails it or texts it to the driver. This needs to happen in less
| than 2 days, else someone along that chain is on the hook to pay
| a storage fee to the rail yard.
| superice wrote:
| You should look into Secure Container Release, Certified
| PickUp, Secure Chain, and a whole bunch of other initiatives
| doing this. Here is the Dutch one:
| https://www.portbase.com/en/programs/secure-chain/
| jjk166 wrote:
| The article notes that many automated ports are poor performers
| productivity-wise and presents this as evidence that automation
| doesn't increase productivity. However, it stands to reason that
| ports already suffering from low productivity would be the most
| inclined to adopt automation. I think it's safe to say automation
| is not a silver bullet that will cause a port to jump from the
| bottom to the top of the rankings, but that doesn't mean these
| ports wouldn't be worse off without the improvements they've
| made.
|
| Also while the article champions various process improvements to
| make ports more efficient that don't strictly require automation,
| it's not an either/or scenario. Implementing automation can make
| it easier to implement process improvements like scheduling, and
| process improvements which reduce variability make automation
| less expensive and more capable. It makes sense to pursue both in
| parallel.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| useful line of thinking here.. this approach also reveals a
| fundamental part of negotiations.. are people interested in
| seeing an approach? and willing to put up with small failures
| and setbacks to get to a desired approach? ask that for both
| sides. call them "automators" .. those who want more robots,
| all the time, at any cost(?) due to the bright and shiny robot
| future they make.. and/or the "john henry"s so to speak..
| humans and their allies.. people who make a living, have
| property and are part of families, schools and communities..
| elect representatives into social groups that have a seat at
| the table.. long-term humans that live and thrive
|
| On another hand, pure "economic determinism" about efficiency
| and quarterly results, that is included in this topic.. but
| some might say that those economic determinism people have a
| lot to answer for in an age of inappropriately priced fossil
| fuels, availability of credit in large amounts for unequal
| reasons, a system of law and associated prices that assume an
| infinite natural world to use up in any way, shape or form.
| etc.
| bluGill wrote:
| Autometion generally starts with high labor costs which
| poductivity is not really a measure of. Sometimes it is about
| safety or no strikes, but normaly wages.
|
| Once automation works it often is more productive but not
| always.
| bsder wrote:
| Automation makes the happy path faster but almost always makes
| the unhappy paths much, much slower. So, if you wind up with
| too many unhappy path cases, your automation made things worse,
| not better.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| I find this dockworker strike interesting because it's forcing
| people to re-evaluate their principles and beliefs about workers'
| rights and unions.
|
| >yass! go labor unions! strike! power to the workers!
|
| >NO, NOT LIKE THAT!
|
| Some questions for those struggling with this:
|
| - How will you reconcile your unconditional love for unions and
| laborers with the fact that you do not approve of what this labor
| union is striking against?
|
| - Given that you believe these workers' complaints are invalid,
| will you continue to support the proliferation of unions?
|
| - If you've deemed the complaints of a labor union to be invalid,
| what do you think should happen in that case? Would you like to
| see the union dissolved?
|
| - Would you like to see "shell unions" that severely limit the
| power of the plebeians but still look good on paper because it's
| a union and "union == good"?
| partiallypro wrote:
| Unions have their place, but I would argue that any heavy
| concentration of power (this obviously also applies to
| corporations) is bad. There absolutely no reason an entity
| should exist that can on a whim shut down the entire east
| coast/gulf shipping industry.
| la64710 wrote:
| The one basic principle to automate can be that automation should
| be used as a means to supplement human productivity , but if it
| replace the basic livelihoods of human beings then it should be
| taxed and the proceeds distributed as UBI. After all what is the
| point of automation of it ends up causing suffering for us?
| five_lights wrote:
| This is a tough one, and I think is a bug of the current
| system, and only serves to hold us back. I'd like to think that
| one day we'll reach the point where UBI is practical. We're not
| there yet, and we need to do more in the interim offset the
| impacts of automation to workers losing their livelihoods as a
| result.
|
| These workers, in particular, I think would be the most ideal
| candidates to make and monitor this automation. Send them to
| college part time to learn the skills they need for this.
|
| Re-training programs to teach them new skills to make a
| horizontal (or upward) shift in the workforce seems like a no
| brainer.
|
| Problem is, who's going to front the capitol for this? If we
| forgo automation at the ports, it will impede the potential
| cost savings of shipping goods into the US, making importing
| goods less attractive to everyone involved. Re-training can be
| expensive as well, who's going to front the capitol to pay a
| mid-career worker with a family a similar salary to re-train?
|
| Our system has failed horribly with this, and it needs to come
| up with something as more and more jobs are sought to be
| automated out of existence. There's no reason why we should
| have to avoid technical progress just to make sure people can
| keep collecting a paycheck.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The article talks a lot about automated ports, but I am wondering
| what the variation in these automated ports is?
|
| Surely a port built today from the ground up with automation in
| mind would outperform a port that was retrofitted 20 years ago?
| Or a port that was upgraded today performing much better than
| when it was first automated 20 years ago?
| renewiltord wrote:
| The best part about the unions is there are 50k on strike for 25k
| jobs. How? Because we already paid off 25k of them so that we
| could do containerization. That's how it goes. You pay the
| danegeld and you get more Vikings.
| nfriedly wrote:
| Are there any businesses that both have unions and grant
| employees equity? If so, can the employees transfer their equity
| to the union, perhaps in lieu of paying dues? I feel like it
| could be a good way to align incentives, but I'm not sure it's
| actually feasible in the US.
|
| I suppose unions at public companies could always just buy the
| stock regardless of employee equity grants.
| Therenas wrote:
| Wouldn't that be the opposite of aligning incentives? Unions
| want the workers to do well, stockholders want the company to
| do well. The company paying people less is better for
| stockholders, worse for employees obviously. So that seems like
| an awful idea.
| DylanDmitri wrote:
| The union could hold shares in a trust, pledging not to sell.
| Then vote with the shares, and distribute any dividends
| through to the workers.
| rank0 wrote:
| I encourage you to read up on the history on unions. People
| on this site have this insane idea that $CORP=bad and
| $UNION=good. The truth is that neither party is inherent
| good/bad. Unions can and have done plenty of shady things.
| Union leadership can be primarily self-interested (just like
| any other individuals).
|
| Employees with equity shouldn't be seen as a bad thing!
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| Who or what does not need more automation?
| option wrote:
| yes
| breakingrules3 wrote:
| what a stupid question
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| We should back up and ask, "Why do we have an economy?"
|
| If the response is to benefit people, then actions which benefit
| the economy at the expense of benefiting people are misaligned to
| our goals. It's an alignment problem and boy if we can't solve
| this, then I have some bad news for you regarding the next 30
| years.
| pjfin123 wrote:
| Are you saying more automation or less automation would benefit
| people?
| ta1243 wrote:
| We have the economy to get the maximum output for the minimum
| input
|
| Having 100 people working doing something that could be
| automated is bad for mankind. It's a total waste. Might as well
| have them digging a hole then filling it back in.
|
| The problem is that we don't allow for changing work
| requirements, both on an individual basis with retraining into
| jobs of equivalent satisfaction and compensation, but also into
| keeping areas which lose their industry relevant. This causes
| people to blame the automation.
|
| It's nothing new, in the past workers who felt their livelihood
| threatened by automation flung their wooden shoes, called
| 'sabots', into the machines to stop them. ...Hence the word
| 'sabotage'.
| marinmania wrote:
| It's not an alignment problem, it's a distribution problem.
| Automated ports would acutely hurt a very small group of people
| and help all other people a small amount.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| It's an alignment problem, don't be fooled.
|
| Is our economy aligned to the benefit of people? Are we
| capable of aligning it to our benefit? Do we have any
| obligation to people we hurt through the decisions we make?
| marinmania wrote:
| It's like asking if we should install a manned toll booth
| that raises exactly enough money to pay the toll booth
| workers. Or if everyone should pay higher taxes to raise
| the social security benefits of a randomly selected group
| of people.
|
| That's not an alignment issue, because it's not clear if
| raising prices on everyone to support a few thousands
| workers is pro-worker or pre-human. You could just as
| easily argue (and I do) that lowering prices and freeing up
| man hours is pro-worker and pro-human.
| rank0 wrote:
| Economies are a naturally occurring phenomenon and also a
| prerequisite for a functioning society. No group makes a
| decision to "create" the economy (especially not the
| government).
| nostrademons wrote:
| The metric used in this article is likely different than the
| metric that the port operators care about. The article was
| measuring productivity by turnaround time for ships. The port
| operator probably cares most about operating costs. Excess
| turnaround time for ships is a cost born by the shipping line
| (and consumer), and it is unlikely to affect whether people
| choose a given port because geographic concerns dominate most.
|
| The goal of the port operator is explicitly to lay off
| longshoremen so they don't have to pay inflated salaries. It is
| diametrically opposed to the union's goals in this regard, hence
| the dispute. The article largely acknowledge that automation
| succeeds in reducing the number of longshoremen required, which
| is its actual purpose. (It did question whether the reduced labor
| costs actually pay for the capital investment required, but
| didn't give any numbers. Since capital investment is a one-time
| cost but wages are a recurring cost, this calculation needs to be
| subjected to discounted cash flow analysis, which also requires
| that an interest rate be specified.)
| partiallypro wrote:
| In the ports in the US that have adopted some automation, it
| hasn't led to job losses. It actually increased throughput and
| required more workers.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| The US needs more unions.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Would you prefer EZ pass lanes to disappear and everything be
| manual toll workers? I can say for sure the Golden Gate Bridge
| moves a lot faster now.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| EZ pass lanes are not a good example because they require
| very few employees relative to the number of cars, at least
| on high-traffic roads like Golden Gate. So those can be
| eliminated without impacting a large number of jobs, and at
| significant benefit to all drivers.
|
| A better example would be replacing all baristas with robots,
| or truck drivers with self-driving trucks. Those would have
| massive negative impact on employment and society in general,
| while bringing huge returns to some lucky corporate winners,
| in effect a massive transfer of wealth from workers to
| shareholders.
|
| All that to say, the US definitely needs more unions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-08 23:01 UTC)