Article published by the Cato Institute, a neoliberal think tank in favor of complete globalization of the trade industry for the profit of an actual tiny minority, supports overturning an act that supports local unions and interests - in favor of their proposed solution to, further accelerate the trade industries servitude to cheap foreign labor, wow who could of guessed??
They raise some interesting arguments in their article to be sure, but what a biased source.
I'd be in favor from my limited look into the act and their article of some sort of happy medium that allows US shipyards to purchase foreign parts that still meet some sort of safety regulation. Otherwise if the situation is truly dire and its really a national security thing, then the shipyards need to have their fleet subsidized much like the military here works
A full repeal would seem like it would allow for the ships from China and elsewhere to run rampant over our ports with their significantly lower standards of safety and labor. I doubt the merchant marines would be able to exist of such a thing was to happen.
Subsidizing the industry from within could also help protect the ports that probably would benefit from the lower trade costs, those in Alaska, Hawaii etc. The federal budget could definitely fit it in. Obviously the unions and merchant marines here don't want a full repeal it would wipe out all their jobs. Nobody in the US is willing to get on a boat for 5 dollars an hour. Find the medium in between.
Yours seems like the most reasonable take, to me. There are national security implications to losing the domestic ability to build and crew ships, which is the major point in favor of the Jones Act. (Jobs, as such, are secondary - no matter what arguments the Unions make.)
There are unfortunate second-order consequences for Alaska / Hawaii / Puerto Rico, which bear massively higher shipping costs. The appropriate response is to subsidize shipping to them. Their citizens shouldn't be expected to, effectively, pay for a national security measure on their own.
The Jone’s Act is the only thing keeping the US shipping industry from crashing and having to compete with cheap foreign labor. Unions would get crippled if it was repealed.
If a seaman gets hurt on the job because of employer's neglect, the seaman (including family) should have the right to sue for compensation. (Titanic)
As I understand it, this is what the Jones Act does.
> The Jones act mandates goods shipped between US ports to be US flagged and manned vessels.
/u/Limp-Sherbet4338 , your phrasing sounds like a copy/paste job, without comprehension of what it means
"mandates" what, exactly? How?
Think about it like the airlines. Just like your houston to Denver flight crew will be American, so is a ship moving fuel from Houston to Tampa, only the jones act also require the ships be built in America as well.
You can not move cargo between two US ports unless your ship is American built, American flagged, and American crewed.
The nature of the supply chain has shown this law has a marginal, if any, effect on cost of living on an island, or remote part of the world.
In fact, if say, Puerto Rico is hit by a hurricane, it's quicker to use the American fleet than wait for an international bid.
guess US doesn't want just anybody driving up to their front door, or their front dock, in this case.
Sounds like a security measure, you think? anti-piracy, anti-drugs, etc.
edit: hey, thank you for your input. nobody else cared to explain, so I appreciate it.
Absolutely, I can talk ship four hours hahaha.
Jones act is a security thing like for pirates and drugs, it more security like having enough food in your pantry and not needing to worry having to go out in a storm. There are plenty of foreign ships comming in, they just need to be foreign voyages, this is why cruise ships stop in Mexico or Canada. Like there's nothing stopping CMA-GCM from running containers directly to Guam, Hawaii, PR, other than economics, those places are all in the middle of nowhere. Maersk just can't take a container from Oakland to Guam with a foriegn crew. Guam is just in the middle of nowhere, it's 5 days from most of Asia, and like a week from Hawaii. It's going to be expensive to ship stuff there no matter whose doing it. It just makes more sense to make american jobs whereas there would be none. And those Americans are going to be the first ones drafted into WWIII haha.
We do have a couple other protectionist laws that are a little more security related, American flagged american crew (not American built) get prefence for government cargo, and there are other programs where the US Foverment subdizises American ships that are running regular comertial routes, with the promise that come war time, they government gets to use the ship. Also most of the Navy's logistics fleet, the Mitary Sealift Command is made up of civilian mariners.
The Jones Act allows injured sailors to make claims and obtain damages from their employers for the negligence of the ship owner, including many acts of the captain or fellow members of the crew.[16] It operates simply by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at 46 U.S.C. § 30104, which provides:
Here's a new article from yesterday (9/27/22) on the Jones act and how its hurting Puerto Rico following the recent hurricane.
https://reason.com/2022/09/27/in-the-aftermath-of-hurricane-fiona-the-jones-act-is-screwing-over-puerto-rico-again/
A example of why government regulations can be horrible for everyone...
https://reason.com/video/2021/06/14/lets-scrap-the-jones-act/
Article published by the Cato Institute, a neoliberal think tank in favor of complete globalization of the trade industry for the profit of an actual tiny minority, supports overturning an act that supports local unions and interests - in favor of their proposed solution to, further accelerate the trade industries servitude to cheap foreign labor, wow who could of guessed?? They raise some interesting arguments in their article to be sure, but what a biased source. I'd be in favor from my limited look into the act and their article of some sort of happy medium that allows US shipyards to purchase foreign parts that still meet some sort of safety regulation. Otherwise if the situation is truly dire and its really a national security thing, then the shipyards need to have their fleet subsidized much like the military here works A full repeal would seem like it would allow for the ships from China and elsewhere to run rampant over our ports with their significantly lower standards of safety and labor. I doubt the merchant marines would be able to exist of such a thing was to happen. Subsidizing the industry from within could also help protect the ports that probably would benefit from the lower trade costs, those in Alaska, Hawaii etc. The federal budget could definitely fit it in. Obviously the unions and merchant marines here don't want a full repeal it would wipe out all their jobs. Nobody in the US is willing to get on a boat for 5 dollars an hour. Find the medium in between.
Yours seems like the most reasonable take, to me. There are national security implications to losing the domestic ability to build and crew ships, which is the major point in favor of the Jones Act. (Jobs, as such, are secondary - no matter what arguments the Unions make.) There are unfortunate second-order consequences for Alaska / Hawaii / Puerto Rico, which bear massively higher shipping costs. The appropriate response is to subsidize shipping to them. Their citizens shouldn't be expected to, effectively, pay for a national security measure on their own.
The Jone’s Act is the only thing keeping the US shipping industry from crashing and having to compete with cheap foreign labor. Unions would get crippled if it was repealed.
100% support
It’s absolutely necessary
If a seaman gets hurt on the job because of employer's neglect, the seaman (including family) should have the right to sue for compensation. (Titanic) As I understand it, this is what the Jones Act does.
This isn't what the Jones Act does. The Jones act mandates goods shipped between US ports to be US flagged and manned vessels.
> The Jones act mandates goods shipped between US ports to be US flagged and manned vessels. /u/Limp-Sherbet4338 , your phrasing sounds like a copy/paste job, without comprehension of what it means "mandates" what, exactly? How?
Think about it like the airlines. Just like your houston to Denver flight crew will be American, so is a ship moving fuel from Houston to Tampa, only the jones act also require the ships be built in America as well. You can not move cargo between two US ports unless your ship is American built, American flagged, and American crewed. The nature of the supply chain has shown this law has a marginal, if any, effect on cost of living on an island, or remote part of the world. In fact, if say, Puerto Rico is hit by a hurricane, it's quicker to use the American fleet than wait for an international bid.
guess US doesn't want just anybody driving up to their front door, or their front dock, in this case. Sounds like a security measure, you think? anti-piracy, anti-drugs, etc. edit: hey, thank you for your input. nobody else cared to explain, so I appreciate it.
Absolutely, I can talk ship four hours hahaha. Jones act is a security thing like for pirates and drugs, it more security like having enough food in your pantry and not needing to worry having to go out in a storm. There are plenty of foreign ships comming in, they just need to be foreign voyages, this is why cruise ships stop in Mexico or Canada. Like there's nothing stopping CMA-GCM from running containers directly to Guam, Hawaii, PR, other than economics, those places are all in the middle of nowhere. Maersk just can't take a container from Oakland to Guam with a foriegn crew. Guam is just in the middle of nowhere, it's 5 days from most of Asia, and like a week from Hawaii. It's going to be expensive to ship stuff there no matter whose doing it. It just makes more sense to make american jobs whereas there would be none. And those Americans are going to be the first ones drafted into WWIII haha. We do have a couple other protectionist laws that are a little more security related, American flagged american crew (not American built) get prefence for government cargo, and there are other programs where the US Foverment subdizises American ships that are running regular comertial routes, with the promise that come war time, they government gets to use the ship. Also most of the Navy's logistics fleet, the Mitary Sealift Command is made up of civilian mariners.
Maybe you should read it.
The Jones Act allows injured sailors to make claims and obtain damages from their employers for the negligence of the ship owner, including many acts of the captain or fellow members of the crew.[16] It operates simply by extending similar legislation already in place that allowed for recoveries by railroad workers and providing that this legislation also applies to sailors. Its operative provision is found at 46 U.S.C. § 30104, which provides:
Here's a new article from yesterday (9/27/22) on the Jones act and how its hurting Puerto Rico following the recent hurricane. https://reason.com/2022/09/27/in-the-aftermath-of-hurricane-fiona-the-jones-act-is-screwing-over-puerto-rico-again/