Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoeAltmaier | Hacker News Reader

Container ships (and standardized containers) are a major reason for the standard of living in our modern society. The volumes are so huge, that the cost per package to ship halfway around the world is relatively small.

The downside is, accidents can be of startling proportions.

View on HN

I watched a YouTube video about the economics of scrapping still useable cruise and container ships recently (spoiler: the price of scrap steel is worth more than the cost of continuing to run old ships). One of the mind blowing points was that its cheaper to send a container from the UK to Australia, than from the UK to Switzerland.

I'd love to see this?

Im pretty sure its this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qo-2gDg-37w

Yes that's it, thanks.

Interesting as well that the actual voyage is pretty cheap, compared with the local transits and the various port and filing fees at each end.

It has more to do with standardized handling and not breaking bulk than with volume. Vessel size has grown, but only slowly. If you look at how shipping was done back when longshoremen broke bulk it was a stupendous amount of work.

I was in school as a merchant marine officer. I remember my Cargo Operations instructor telling us that "back in the day" when they went into Singapore or other port in that region on a break-bulk ship, they would expect to be in port for 2-3 weeks, and go out and see the sights (read: hookers and bars). "But with containers, these days we're lucky if we are in port for more than 12 hours before we're unloaded and back out to sea."

It's one reason why manufacturing of anything from furniture to electronics is hardly done in the west anymore; because shipping is relatively cheap compared to the wage difference, it's much cheaper to have things built in china and shipped here.

I do believe that long-term, probably in our lifetime, this balance will shift; China's economy (and with it, wages and cost of living) is and has been booming for decades, and the US's wages (slash minimum wage) have been static for just as long. I suspect this is why China is investing a lot in infrastructure internationally; I think we'll see Africa become a big player in manufacturing, sponsored and financed by China.

To me it seems to be an er, interesting kind of economic / capitalist colonialism, something not done by force but by incentives (loans to pay for it, people to build it, forfeiture of the infrastructure if the loan cannot be paid back).

I think you're right on about Africa, except that it might also include parts of South America. For at least the last century, different countries have climbed the industrial production ladder; "made in Japan" and "made in Taiwan" were for a time associated with "cheap crap" manufacturing, then higher-quality stuff as their economies and industries finished (re)building and maturing, then finally the bulk of it got offshored and those labels are now pretty rare to see in the US. Mainland China's on the same ladder. Certainly in our lifetime we'll see some other countries start getting tapped for the "cheap crap" manufacturing as China tries to divest itself of that (it'll hang on to the electronics for a lot longer, of course), and then eventually on up their own ladders.

While it's not often that an iPhone is called "Made in Taiwan" or the latest Gaming Console as "Made in Japan," Taiwan and Japan are still very much present in the US.

I completely agree though that the label "Made in Japan" isn't present. In fact, if I remember correctly, "Made in $Country" labels are an import requirement that may in fact be a form of protectionism? I'm sure the argument could be made either way.

The downside is also: sweatshops and greenhouse gas emissions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com