QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor. 1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments. 2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we.
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor. 1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments. 2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we. Not believable unless you can show some facts.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor. 1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments. 2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we. Not believable unless you can show some facts. Don, I don't have the time to do a complete study (unless you are willing to pay for my time to do so), but in the mean time just use a little common sense regarding the trade postition of the U.S. vs the rest of the world when in comes to transportation costs from the interior to the ocean ports. For example, it costs roughly $80 m/t to transport grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim. Via New Orleans its roughly $20 m/t by rail Minneapolis to NO, then $60 m/t by ship. Via PNW, its roughly $45 m/t by rail, then $40 via ship to Pacific Rim nations. The cost to ship by rail is double Minneapolis to PNW what it is Minneapolis to NO/Gulf ports. If the railroads charged a similar rate on both routes, the cost of shipping grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim would fall to around $60 m/t. (Source: Grain Transportation Report from the USDA). That would in turn make U.S. grain sales to the Pacific Rim much more attractive to those buyers, and thus it would do it's part to decrease the imbalance of trade between the U.S. and the Pacific Rim. The reason for this disparity has been explained at length in this forum, since BNSF is the only real rail shipping option between Minneapolis and PNW, with UP only adding marginal competition due to the duopolistic existence of the Western U.S. rail network, and thus they can charge monopolistic/duopolistic rates between the two areas. Compare this to the subsidies both CP and CN get to ship grain from the Prairies to Vancouver, or the rates charged on Australia's open access rail system for carriage of similar distances, and it becomes obvious that this situation is one of the reasons for the U.S. trade deficit. The solutions to this problem include (1)reregulating the Class I railroads, (2)open access of the current U.S. rail network, (3)addition of a second or third Northern Tier transcon via federal aid/land grants e.g. fostering rail based competition similar to what exists in the Midwest's North-South corridors, (4)or having a federal agency such as the Corps of Engineers or FRA do the building of new open access rail lines between the Midwest and PNW, all of which would aid the U.S. in ameliorating the imbalance of trade. I would like to take the time to do a survey of the number of U.S. exporting firms who have their production facilities captive to one Class I vs those who have access to more than one Class I and/or other viable shipping alternatives such as barging, and then compare this list to firms in other nations and their shipping options. The null hypothesis would be that there is no statistical difference in domestic shipping costs, a notion that would be easy to disprove. Common sense would indicate there is a significant difference, both in terms of U.S. export domestic transport costs vs import costs, and in terms of U.S. export costs vs other nation's export costs.
23 17 46 11
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH Futuremodal seems to also ignore the fact that our trade deficit is also based on the fact that foreign-made goods are appreciably cheaper to the consumer than domestic-made goods, in part because foreign labor is much cheaper than American labor. 1. Labor costs (wages) are a very small part of why American goods are more expensive for Americans than are foreign goods. The transportation costs of shipping goods from overseas tends to wipe out labor cost savings. What really kills American manufacturing competitiveness is the level of regulation we endure and the subsequent inability to react quickly to market changes. You can also add the cost of labor protections to that list. By constrast, foreign firms have much lower regulation, are more elastic in terms of labor arrangements, and also tend to have substantial subsidies from their governments. 2. You also have to understand that we are not just competing on a unit for unit basis with other countries, e.g. it's not just us trading with country A, and us trading with country B. We are competing with countries A, B, and C for markets in countries X, Y, and Z. The fact that it costs more to transport our goods from point of origin within our boundaries to the nearest deep water port, relative to other nation's abilities to move their products from their points of origin to their deep water ports, is a significant part of why we are getting killed in foreign trade even with the depreciated dollar. We are saddled with a proprietary rail grid with access limited to the discretion of the owner, while other nations are blessed with open access of their rail lines. Also, other nations such as Canada allow heavier truck weights and longer truck lengths than the U.S. which means they can use the alternative of last resort more efficiently than we. Not believable unless you can show some facts. Don, I don't have the time to do a complete study (unless you are willing to pay for my time to do so), but in the mean time just use a little common sense regarding the trade postition of the U.S. vs the rest of the world when in comes to transportation costs from the interior to the ocean ports. For example, it costs roughly $80 m/t to transport grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim. Via New Orleans its roughly $20 m/t by rail Minneapolis to NO, then $60 m/t by ship. Via PNW, its roughly $45 m/t by rail, then $40 via ship to Pacific Rim nations. The cost to ship by rail is double Minneapolis to PNW what it is Minneapolis to NO/Gulf ports. If the railroads charged a similar rate on both routes, the cost of shipping grain from Minneapolis to the Pacific Rim would fall to around $60 m/t. (Source: Grain Transportation Report from the USDA). That would in turn make U.S. grain sales to the Pacific Rim much more attractive to those buyers, and thus it would do it's part to decrease the imbalance of trade between the U.S. and the Pacific Rim. The reason for this disparity has been explained at length in this forum, since BNSF is the only real rail shipping option between Minneapolis and PNW, with UP only adding marginal competition due to the duopolistic existence of the Western U.S. rail network, and thus they can charge monopolistic/duopolistic rates between the two areas. Compare this to the subsidies both CP and CN get to ship grain from the Prairies to Vancouver, or the rates charged on Australia's open access rail system for carriage of similar distances, and it becomes obvious that this situation is one of the reasons for the U.S. trade deficit. The solutions to this problem include (1)reregulating the Class I railroads, (2)open access of the current U.S. rail network, (3)addition of a second or third Northern Tier transcon via federal aid/land grants e.g. fostering rail based competition similar to what exists in the Midwest's North-South corridors, (4)or having a federal agency such as the Corps of Engineers or FRA do the building of new open access rail lines between the Midwest and PNW, all of which would aid the U.S. in ameliorating the imbalance of trade. I would like to take the time to do a survey of the number of U.S. exporting firms who have their production facilities captive to one Class I vs those who have access to more than one Class I and/or other viable shipping alternatives such as barging, and then compare this list to firms in other nations and their shipping options. The null hypothesis would be that there is no statistical difference in domestic shipping costs, a notion that would be easy to disprove. Common sense would indicate there is a significant difference, both in terms of U.S. export domestic transport costs vs import costs, and in terms of U.S. export costs vs other nation's export costs. Once again you forget the little fact that the railroads have competition. In this case grain will flow from the Twin Cities to New Orleans on something called a barge using the Miss. River. Do you suppose that has something to do with the rail rate level on the same od pairs?
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH To futuremodal: What's the point besides subsidized rates for Montana farmers who have been constrained by geography?
QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH To futuremodal: What's the point besides subsidized rates for Montana farmers who have been constrained by geography? Montana factoid: In the 8 years between 1995 and 2003 MT farmers got $3,097,849,833 in USDA subsidies( see www.ewg.org/farm/regionsummary.php?fips=30000). Something to ponder between now and April 15 fellow US taxpayers.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear Mitch- You are missing my point. It is not one feature about the past we are talking about here. It is a change of direction. First, ALL the feature articles in the March issue are from the 70s. By my count there are 14 feature articles inthe issue all dealing with the 70s. I find some quite interesting, but I read Classic TRAINS when I want a complete magazine about the past. Also, as others have noted Railroad Reading has disappeared, Mark Hemphill's column is gone (although Mark did write the SP article which is most interesting) and the look and feel is definitely changing. Obviously Jim Wrinn needs to find his footing as Editor and perhaps future issues will be different, but I hope we're not seeing a new trend that will again split TRAINS core audience both railfans and railroaders. LC
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.