@cpgrabow I think 90% of the flak you catch here would evaporate if you talked more about ways things could be done better than seeming to mostly advocate to repeal the Jones Act and let Adam Smith’s ghostly corpse hand take care of the rest. I’ve seen more solutions-oriented talk along those lines from you lately, which has been refreshing, and hope to see more of it.
I’m not sure if you’ve really thought about it much this way, but the anti-Jones-Act fight has felt, for a lot of us whose livelihoods depend on it, like being a reluctant Obamacare recipient with pre-existing conditions during the “Repeal and Replace” era. You heard a whole lot about Repeal and precious little about Replace. It’s possible to simultaneously dislike the Affordable Care Act while disliking the alternative (“Go broke and die in pain, peasants”) even more. Comparably, it’s possible to agree that the Jones Act has failed while also believing that the only thing worse than the Jones Act would be no Jones Act. I think you’d find a whole lot more positive engagement, here at least, if you engaged from that angle.
Out of curiosity, have you done much research/thought-experimenting/etc on what the competition landscape would look like if the primary shipbuilding nations did away with their subsidy programs? IE, how far behind would US industry be if playing on an even field? Would, in that imaginary world, we have a reasonable chance of competing?
There’s nothing he could do that would make 90% of the flak he catches here disappear, be honest, this is an (understandably) hostile spot for his position.
The research on the whole rest of the world ending subsidies is kinda odd too. Cato is fighting a losing battle trying to fight the JA in this one country. A DC left libertarian think tank writing white papers for every other maritime nation on god’s blue earth seems a bridge too far, imho.
I will likely be starting a new thread on this subject but what must happen is for the US Administration and Congress to determine a clear set of achievable goals to reach what they consider the priorities of having a healthy and adequate commercial maritime industry in the USA enough to be able to support both our economic and military health without being forced to call upon other nations to bail us out in a crisis. So with not being forced to call on other (even allied nations) as a starting point what does the US require?
One, a surplus of trained, experienced and qualified manpower since to man a reserve fleet means people must be available beyond enough to man the operating fleets. With a shortage even now to keep the operating fleet manned means on its face there is not any real surplus to call on in an emergency. This means a reserve fleet not being manned anywhere near a quickly enough to have a meaningful effect in the very short period needed to breakout, load and then send these ships into a conflict. If we have 45 RRF ships to mobilize we are looking at months before they are all moving which likely will be too late arriving in theater.
Two: having enough available militarily useful ships outside of the RRF. The MSP did something to plug a gap here but the crews on those ships must remain on them in a conflict so only a fraction will be able to be pulled off of them and the same goes for ships operating in the Jones Act trades as those ships still need to operate lest Alaska, Hawall and Puerto Rico go onto starvation rations.
Three: the ability to build ships in the US which is what the 60 Minutes story was about. Yes, we can get foreign built ships for cheap during peacetime which again is the model for both the MSP and RFF fleets but those need to be acquired when you don’t need them yesterday because once the crisis hits, forget getting them then. The ability to build them in the US is likely not as important because no war will be like WWII where time allows the nation to mobilize its industrial base but we will want there to be yards in the US who can get reserve ships running after sitting for years and to quickly repair them as they return from the warzone. A ship which can’t be turned around and sent back is a lost ship if just sitting at a dock waiting for parts and a space in one of just a tiny handful of yards equipped to do the work.
Having the Jones Act remain enforced at least maintains #1 and #3 to some although not nearly a full extent.
Further we all know nobody in Washington feels they are responsible to pay the cost for any of this which is where the maritime security trust fund created by the SHIPS Act makes great sense. Foreign ships calling in the US need to be levied fees for access to our markets. Of course, Maersk, MSC, CMA/CGM, Evergreen, COSCO, et all will scream like they are being burned alive but all those lines are foreign owned and need access to bring imports to US. Tough on them but that’s just the new reality where it’s pay to play.
Did I leave anything out other than to ask the esteemed Mr. Grabow to give us his plan which achieves all the above if the Jones Act is euthanized and new legislation is not enacted in its place? We may not get much from the Jones Act but at least the US gets a handful of yards still able to build a merchant ship here and all the US mariners who man them. Yes, the consumers of products carried by US built ships might pay a tiny fraction less if the build mandate was repealed but is ZERO merchant ship construction industry in the US really worth that small savings? Why on Earth is the Cato Institute so hell bent to kill the Act other than is a cheaper option for the companies you need JA qualified ships and why stop there when these corporations can save even more by shitcanning American mariners. As stated before…this is NOT and economic matter but one that protects our own security.
There are a lot of reasons why labor intensive and “dirty” American industries are not competitive.
For example: Japan and South Korea are US taxpayer subsidized. We paid to rebuild them after WWII and the Korean War. We have paid for their defense ever since. Without that US taxpayer subsidy South Korea would not exist, it would have been swallowed by North Korea. These subsidies to Japan and Korea are much larger than any subsidies to US to US shipbuilding or shipping.
The US has environmental laws that have driven industry out of the US.
The US has labor laws, safety laws, and high legal liability that other countries do not have.
The US has an extensive welfare system that makes work optional for too many people.
The US has an extreme drug abuse and problem (much of which is facilitated by China) that sidelines a significant portion of what should be the workforce.
The US has a crazy tax system that puts most of the tax burden on “upper middle class” earners.
The Jones Act has virtually nothing to with US Flag foreign going shipping.
The Jones Act has little to do with shipping most goods from one place in the US to another, that is mostly done by trucks.
Unlike other countries, the US has relatively little short sea shipping. That has little to do with the Jones Act. It mostly is caused by excessive stevedoring costs, that make trucking cheaper, faster and more reliable.
If you want to energize short sea shipping in the US, and save consumers money, forget about the Jones Act, bring in port automation and foreign longshoremen.
There are no half-truths. The delta between US and foreign costs has continued to grow. The NYT recently quoted a shipping expert as placing the maximum cost of Aloha class ships at $75m if built in Asia. Re; the lease, I can’t confirm if it is still in place but I’m pretty sure it is since when the yard went down to ~80 employees in 2019 there was talk of rescinding some of the government goodies that had been extended to the yard as part of a long-term deal. I assume the lease was part of that.
I would like your feedback on this however: If we outsourced our shipbuilding to ROK or Japan, do you see it as a real threat that China could disrupt that vital supply line through either soft or hard power if the US and China get into a conflict? If yes, is it acceptable for the US to not have the ability to make our own ships independent of external influences?
We are dependent on ROK and other imports for the few ships built here, so this threat is the status quo. As for building our own ships, that would be nice. Lots of things are nice. But there are huge trade-offs here. And the resources required to make the US a non-trivial builder of large commercial ships offers a poor ROI from my perspective. Particularly given that it would only pay dividends in a multiyear conflict (Americans can barely tolerate a bombing campaign with Iran, but we’re going to get in a multiyear with China, involving thousands of dead Americans, over Taiwan? I’m skeptical. And if we do, how many mariners are willing to sail unescorted as part of a sealift effort?).
Out of curiosity, have you done much research/thought-experimenting/etc on what the competition landscape would look like if the primary shipbuilding nations did away with their subsidy programs? IE, how far behind would US industry be if playing on an even field? Would, in that imaginary world, we have a reasonable chance of competing?
Many nations have a national industrial policy for their own resilience. The libertarians are against such policies. I find that amusing as there has never been a successful libertarian government. But they keep chipping away where they can. Meanwhile countries with reasonable national industrial policies fare much better in maintaining their independence. The US is falling behind in many areas and has just recently woken up and realized something needs to change. The disruption due to Covid was a small reminder. That the US government subsidizes the oil industry but does not want to subsidize the ships that carry the oil just shows who is paying the bigger bribes [campaign contributions] to congress.
Compare the costs of the US Longshoremen to the Jones Act coastwise tug and barge trade. The longshoremen are most of the cost.
Shipping domestic cargos by truck avoids the cost of the Longshoremen, and pilferage.
Even if foreign built ships and Third World crews were used, trucking would still be cheaper than short sea shipping because it ekiminates the Longshoremen costs
If you want to save consumers money on shipping , eliminating the longshoremen with automation and cheap foreign labor would be the first place to start. That’s where most of the saving would be found.
What shortage? Are you still sailing? I don’t see a shortage and haven’t seen one in a few years. When the reserve ships activate those jobs are gone almost immediately. Unless you know they’re activating and know who’s crewing them you’re usually out of luck.
Totally agree that costly and inefficient US ports are a big part of the problem. But costly ships are too. Both need to be solved to make short sea shipping viable.
The International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA), representing roughly 45,000 dockworkers on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts, has staged a major campaign against the automation of port operations to protect jobs and preserve high wages. Their resistance centers on fears that automated cranes, gates, and trucks will displace human labor, leading to a “working-class crisis”.
Key Aspects of the Dispute
The Demand: The ILA is demanding a complete ban on the automation of cranes, gates, and container-moving trucks at port terminals.
Strike Action: The union launched a three-day strike in October 2024, halting operations at 36 ports, with a key focus on stopping the implementation of automated technology.
Tentative Deal (2025): The union secured a 62% wage increase and a tentative agreement to limit automation through early 2025.
Opposition to “Semi-Automation”: The ILA is particularly concerned with “semi-automated” terminals, such as those in New Jersey and Virginia, where remote-controlled cranes allow one operator to manage multiple machines, which the union argues reduces the overall workforce.
Political Support: President-elect Donald Trump supported the ILA, stating that the financial savings from automation are not worth the harm to American workers.
The Conflict Over Modernization
Union Perspective: The ILA, under leaders like Harold Daggett, argues that automation threatens national security—by creating vulnerabilities to cyberattacks—and removes good-paying jobs.
Employer Perspective: The United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), representing terminal operators, argues that automation is essential to improve safety, increase efficiency, and keep U.S. ports competitive with automated counterparts in Asia and Europe.
The Reality of Automation: While some U.S. West Coast terminals are fully automated, others are only partially automated, and some studies suggest that these technologies can increase efficiency without reducing the total number of jobs, as higher productivity leads to more cargo volume.
The fight over automation has been a long-standing issue, with previous strikes occurring in 1971 and 2012 over similar concerns. The current dispute highlighted that while U.S. ports are generally slower than international rivals, labor remains highly concerned about the “machine-takeover” of their industry.
US versus Asia port efficiency comparison
Asian ports are significantly more efficient than U.S. ports, with top Asian hubs handling containers roughly twice as fast—approximately 24 seconds per move compared to 48 seconds in Los Angeles/Long Beach. Asian ports dominate the top 50 global efficiency rankings, while major U.S. ports often rank near the bottom due to lower automation, limited operating hours, and labor constraints.
Efficiency Comparison Breakdown:
Performance Metrics: The Container Port Performance Index (CPPI) 2023 shows top Asian ports like Yangshan (Shanghai) as the most efficient, while major U.S. ports like Los Angeles and Long Beach are ranked below 350th.
Operating Hours: Asian ports typically operate 24/7 (168 hours/week), while U.S. ports often work fewer hours, such as 16 hours a day (112 hours/week).
Crane Productivity: Asian ports consistently achieve higher container moves per hour (around 35) compared to U.S. ports (around 19).
Automation: Many Asian ports are highly automated and utilize advanced technologies to expedite cargo movement. Conversely, U.S. ports often face resistance to automation from unions, along with infrastructure and congestion challenges.
While some arguments suggest that heavily automated ports do not always guarantee superior performance and that other factors impact U.S. efficiency, it is widely recognized that American maritime logistics lag behind, contributing to higher costs and longer wait times for goods.
I am asking you again Mr. Grabow…we know you have some psychological loathing of the Jones Act so if that is put to sleep, what do you and the Cato Institute propose that is not a direct subsidy from the US Treasury?
You really need to answer this or you should leave here…
I took a deep dive both into the Jones Act and Maritime Action Plan. Used some AI to help me write up some ideas and put together a plan. It even came up with a name for me, Strategic Maritime Growth and Defense Act. It seems like (in my mind) a good way to amend/replace the Jones Act while not giving too much up if any industrial base or jobs. I’m sure it will be picked apart, but at least it could get some people thinking. Enjoy
Two days ago I put a simple question to Colin Grabow here to which he provided no reply so asked it again yesterday with the same sad result.
I have always known the man to be nothing more than a policy wonk with zero creds to speak on the subject of the US maritime industry. All one need do is the look at his resume to see he is nothing more than a paid mouthpiece for huge corporations looking to be rid of any and all regulations which negatively impact their profits. Should they succeed in killing the US build mandate for coastwise trading vessels how long would it be before they start howling that the US citizen manning provision is harmful to the health of our industry. He has come right out and stated so right here:
In addition to its build requirement, the Jones Act’s restriction on foreign mariners — limited to permanent alien residents that comprise no more than 25 percent of a vessel’s unlicensed crew — is also ripe for reassessment
It’s all about corporations looking to replace each and everyone of us with South Asian foreigners
What gives one creds? You know how many fuckin idiots we sail with who know nothing but how to tie a bowline, sometimes not even that. Does just being a sailor mean you’ve got the creds? You can disagree with Colin all you want, I do on most things, but the guy does more research and BACKS IT with sources than anyone on the forum. It’s literally his job. Idk how you can be more credible, even if I disagree with him.
You’re living like most retired guys who sailed forever. The usual “I ran bombs to Iraq and Kuwait during the gulf war” or “the 70’s we did it!” Ect ect ect like that gives you some extra info on the economics of industry. I asked you what shortage of mariners you were talking about and got no response. Does that make you a hack? Are you just a policy wonk??
