
Why Aren’t America’s Shipping Ports Automated? - ryan_j_naughton
http://priceonomics.com/why-arent-americas-shipping-ports-automated/
======
bsder
Why compare Rotterdam (Europe's largest) to Oakland?

Let's compare to Los Angeles (America's largest) instead ...

Rotterdam moves about 50% more containers, but services 36,000 ships vs. Los
Angeles 2,100. Los Angeles sits on 7,500 acres with a 3,200 acre harbor while
Rotterdam sits on 13,000(!) acres with a 13,000 acre harbor.

Dunno, for all that automation, Rotterdam doesn't look that much more
efficient--and it uses a lot more land and water to do so.

If we include Long Beach which is effectively next to Los Angeles, the two
ports combined move _MORE_ containers in a year than Rotterdam while sitting
on less land and harbor space.

So, as we can see, the antiquated, evil longshoreman's union is ... more
efficient than the best automation in Europe.

Ummmmmmmmm.

Now, quit reposting this agenda driven hit piece.

~~~
gthippo
That's a great point, Rotterdam and Oakland are both not great choices for
comparisons. However, there is a general point that US ports such as LA + Long
Beach do lag in efficiency compared to Asian ports such as Singapore for
example (which is heavily automated but also unionized).

For example in "CONTAINER TERMINAL PRODUCTIVITY: EXPERIENCES AT THE PORTS OF
LOS ANGELES AND LONG BEACH" Le and Murphy give some comparisons of LA and Long
Beach to other leading terminals.

Taking Singapore as our main example, as of 2004 it moved 2.7 as much
container volume as LA but occupied roughly half the land area. It has 6 times
the TEU/acre of LA and 64% higher TEU/crane. General trends also hold for Kwai
Tsing (HK) and Klang (Malaysia).

To quote Le and Murphy in the above-mentioned paper:

"Further consideration of these factors reveals that the terminal operators at
these ports are aware of the technologies and practices used at other world
ports that would allow them to achieve a higher level of performance. However,
the present operating agreements between terminal operators and port labor
prevent the implementation of such technologies and practices."

~~~
bsder
LA and Long Beach may also be hampered somewhat in that we apply pollution
regulations to them, do these other ports have those restrictions?

Effectively, "it's complicated".

~~~
nickff
Everything is complicated, and we live in a world of high causal density, but
that does not mean we should throw up our hands in dismay and self-pity.

It is clear that the union is exploiting its monopoly on the supply of port
labor, to decrease efficiency, and increase costs and union membership. For
some reason, most people are less likely to attribute high costs to monopoly
unions, but more than happy to do so for monopoly corporations.

------
tolkienfanatic
Imagine my surprise when the answer is "unions"

~~~
rodgerd
Damn those workers for wanting a living. How dare they. Scum, all of them.

~~~
daj40
"Today, the average member of the union in Oakland makes $147,000 per year in
wages, with benefits equal to another $82,000 per year."

\--

That is a huge amount of money, especially considering that includes entry
level positions. While I understand these machines are complicated, and don't
blame them for wanting to keep their jobs, I didn't expect over 200k a year
total to be the average.

This is especially true considering that the average individual income in
Oakland is around 32k a year.
([http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/city/california/oakland](http://www.bestplaces.net/economy/city/california/oakland))

~~~
intopieces
I find it interesting (if a bit sad) that your reaction to that earnings
disparity is, essentially, "Union workers make too much money" rather than
"Everyone else makes too little." In the free market, it seems everyone is
allowed to negotiate the price of their goods except the wage-workers.

~~~
refurb
Why does HN rally against the big companies that use regulatory capture to
squeeze out more profits, but then gives unions a pass. They are doing the
same thing: supporting legislation that allows them to squeeze out more
profits (as wages).

~~~
qw
A single employee doesn't have much leverage compared to a company. The only
leverage a worker has is the "freedom" to quit. For most companies this is a
minor annoyance, but nothing they really worry about.

Compare this to the leverage a company has. It controls wages, work hours,
work conditions and can fire a worker. This can have devastating impacts on
the life of a worker. Unions are the only realistic option for the average
workers to have an impact. It levels the playing field.

Unions can certainly have too much power and make self destructive decisions,
but you can say the same about many corporations. This is not a problem with
unions or corporations, but with a power balance that is out of control.

The only option to a union is strict regulations from the goverment, but that
has problems of its own. At least the union has a more direct interest and
domain knowledge about their work place

~~~
nickff
Until recently I would have agreed with many of your points, but I recently
read a post to the contrary.[1] Here is a short excerpt:

> _Everyone talks as if bosses have the better end. But talk is very different
> from action. If everyone were trying to start their own businesses and hire
> workers, that would count as "acting as if bosses have the better end of the
> deal." Most workers, however, make no effort to become entrepreneurs. You
> could object that most workers don't have the money to open their own
> businesses, but most rich workers make no effort to become entrepreneurs
> either._

[1]
[http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/09/scott_alexander_...](http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/09/scott_alexander_3.html)

------
Someone
One thing the article nor earlier short discussions here fail to mention is
that a ship costs money every day, also when in port.

Consequently, speeding up unloading means one can raise prices or become more
competitive, either with other ports or with other modes of transport. The
latter may mean that job losses due to automation get partly offset by job
gains due to increases in traffic.

------
checker
Double repost:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10266191](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10266191)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10262186](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10262186)

------
lordnacho
What would happen if someone tried to open a new port?

~~~
douche
Most of the best natural ports are already developed. Also, having a great
modern port is not much good if you don't have the transportation
infrastructure in place to distribute goods from the port.

------
ThomPete
I would like to point to a very interesting Ask HN from a few months ago.
Shipping and logistics came up and was the most up voted discussion. Lots of
great discussion there.

"Ask HN: What problem in your industry is a potential startup?"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9799007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9799007)

------
thedogeye
So much value can be unlocked by automating the ports that there would be
plenty of room for a negotiated settlement to make the unions happy as well.

~~~
bsder
I don't disagree, but you need some numbers to back that up.

You have to get the containers _out_ of the port as well.

So, can the rail system or trucking transfer point handle another 25% in
volume?

To top that off, these ports are some of the biggest pollution sources. What
happens when you add 25% to the traffic?

These things aren't simple choices.

~~~
thedogeye
You don't need a lot of numbers to understand that unloading ships 24/7/52 is
better than unloading only during union work hours.

~~~
bsder
Reference please that the longshoremen don't work night shifts.

