They just don’t need to hire people, isn’t automation a loophole, especially when it’s more efficient even if the labor could be done manually by lower cost workers (why Chinese ports are automating). I don’t see any easy way out of this, and it will just get worse as the automation gets cheaper and more efficient.
> If it's that critical, give the older workers their pension early and let them enjoy their life.
We expect ports to be run like efficient businesses, who pays for that? Consumers I guess via increased shipping fees. Isn’t that just stealing from Peter to pay Paul?
>I don’t see any easy way out of this, and it will just get worse as the automation gets cheaper and more efficient.
I see many "easy" ways out of it. None that would satisfy the USMX. Because their primary goal isn't efficiency of process but of costs.
So I guess I agree.
>We expect ports to be run like efficient businesses, who pays for that? Consumers I guess via increased shipping fees. Isn’t that just stealing from Peter to pay Paul?
Sure. But the ILA didn't make that cost increase directly. The USMX decides instead to pass the costs to the people. Because they'd rather do that than simply pay their way into automation that satisfies the port workers.
Where does the money come from if it doesn’t come from the people who get things from the ports? I guess you could magic away investor money and profit, but that in the long term just leads to less investment in ports and higher costs anyways. You can go about it anyway you want, but we all pay in the end for these contracts, the money doesn’t come from some magic source, in the long run inefficiency and higher costs get passed on one way or the other.
>Where does the money come from if it doesn’t come from the people who get things from the ports?
In addition to fees from traders: our tax dollars? The USMX isn't some fully private company, it's a mixture of government funding and various private contractors. As long as the US needs ports they will budget for it.
>but we all pay in the end for these contracts, the money doesn’t come from some magic source, in the long run inefficiency and higher costs get passed on one way or the other.
Yes, to us. Becsuse the USMX isn't in risk of going out of business. They have little skin in the game. So we lose either way. If I'm gonna lose I may as well make sure others get something out of it.
If they were at risk of going out of business, but the unions had a monopoly on labor contracts and preventing automation, they would still pass on the costs because they couldn’t cut them otherwise. You are basically setting a solid high floor on pricing because they can’t compete on efficiency.
> If it's that critical, give the older workers their pension early and let them enjoy their life.
We expect ports to be run like efficient businesses, who pays for that? Consumers I guess via increased shipping fees. Isn’t that just stealing from Peter to pay Paul?