Dredging Jaxport? 9 Points You Should Consider
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Jaxport1/i-Q65k9kB/0/M/8124994658_0d1ea7f3fd_k-M.jpg)
As the debate over port deepening continues Professor David Jaffee, Ph.D, offers 9 points for Jacksonville taxpayers to consider before supporting this billion dollar initiative for Jaxport.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-feb-dredging-jaxport-9-points-you-should-consider-
QuoteBut, in fact, the accurate figures based on the Martin Associates data are 841 and 5587, respectively.
Is this the number of jobs created for 2020 (as opposed to 2035)?
Very interesting and compelling read. I'd like to see JAXPORT's response. I fear that the article above is the more accurate version of reality, as it fits the mold of 'expenses to the taxpayers, profits to private business' that is so common, it seems.
Imagine what $700mm could do if spent differently for infrastructure, and economic development.
Sadly, it doesn't make a difference.
Brown is for it, Jaxport is for it, Scott is for it, Obama is for it. There's no stopping this train of bad governance.
It's better than what's going on in Miami. Throw in the ridiculous All Aboard Florida folks who want to ship all the containers up the east coast of Florida, with track improvements paid for by the tax payers in the name of passenger traffic from Miami to Orlando. Nobody is going to take a train from Miami to Orlando, that's absurd. Jax is much better positioned from a logistical standpoint of moving the containers out on trains and trucks to the rest of the country through I-10 and I-95. The train network coming out of Jax is extensive and covers all of the states east of the Mississippi.
Basically it boils down to this, if the dredging doesn't happen in Jax it will happen in Miami and then we will have hundreds of long trains per week rolling through the heart of Jax, stopping traffic, blasting their horns at all hours, and not adding anything to the community. While the overall benefit of more port jobs is dubious considering the huge cost of the dredging project, the alternative is not appealing.
Quote from: PeeJayEss on February 24, 2015, 11:07:35 AM
Sadly, it doesn't make a difference.
Brown is for it, Jaxport is for it, Scott is for it, Obama is for it. There's no stopping this train of bad governance.
Actually, the President did not include the dredging in his proposed budget. And there is still the small issue of securing hundreds of millions of local dollars. Unless Gov. Scott plans on paying for the local share with state dollars, this is far from a done deal.
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on February 24, 2015, 11:39:18 AM
Nobody is going to take a train from Miami to Orlando, that's absurd.
really? Have you seen the ridership projections done for any of the rail proposals in Florida over the last 25 years. The Miami-Orlando leg is the sweet spot for ridership and revenue.
I would like to add a couple qualifiers to the piece above that was written in the Summer of 2013. While most of the points remain fully applicable to the present situation, there are a couple of revisions I would make.
First, the U.S. Army Corps report I refer to in #5 was the first draft of the report. The final draft removed any mention of job projections as a result of the deepening project.
Second, in #6 the 65,000 job number used by Jaxport and other officials has been recently increased to 132,599 based on, again, adding the "related jobs" category that now accounts for 82% of the total number of jobs. The same problem identified with this practice for the 65,000 jobs has now become more severe and misleading.
But most important, let me invite all interested citizens to attend a town hall meeting on the dredging to be held Monday, March 9th at the Adam Herbert University Center at UNF from 6-9 pm.
The forum will be modeled after a genuine town hall meeting. The format will be an "open mike" for members of the public attending to express their views and/or ask questions of those in attendance who represent different perspectives on the project. These representatives will not make formal presentations but will be available to respond to questions and concerns. We will have a moderator.
Representatives from the following organizations and stakeholders have been invited to attend: Jaxport, the Mayor's Port Task Force, the Jax Chamber, the Army Corps of Engineers, The Sierra Club, Tra-Pac, the Mayor's Office and any other organizations/businesses that can contribute to an informed public on this important policy matter. Representatives from the co-sponsoring organizations will also be present.
The town hall forum will be co-sponsored by The Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Social Work, UNF; The Ports Project, UNF; The Riverkeeper, and the Northeast Florida Center for Community Initiatives, UNF.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-02-17/story/unf-hosts-mar-9-town-hall-meeting-st-johns-river-dredging-proposal?utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JacksonvillecomsNewsSportsAndEntertainment+%28Jacksonville%27s+Most+Recent+Headlines+-+Jacksonville.com+and+The+Florida+Times-Union%29&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=feedburner
David Jaffee
Quote from: tufsu1 on February 24, 2015, 11:45:10 AM
Quote from: NaldoAveKnight on February 24, 2015, 11:39:18 AM
Nobody is going to take a train from Miami to Orlando, that's absurd.
really? Have you seen the ridership projections done for any of the rail proposals in Florida over the last 25 years. The Miami-Orlando leg is the sweet spot for ridership and revenue.
It makes perfect sense to pay over $100 for a ticket, drive to the train station, wait for the train to leave, get transported to a station that is far away from your destination, take a bus to a stop that is closer to the ultimate destination, walk the final leg of the journey. Heaven forbid there's luggage involved. Or just spend $20 on gas for an entire carload of passengers and arrive where you want and when you want.
Oh I forgot...it's the SWEET SPOT!
^ oh but it isn't $20. The full cost of operating a car is over $0.50 per mile. So the trip by car would cost more than $100 each way.
What makes the train trip any different than flying? There will be access to local transit as well as car rental agencies at the stations.
One thing is not going to happen regardless of whether the river gets dredged or not. American manufacturing is not going to make a comeback. I read a story recently about a company that wanted to make something here. They couldn't find a "parts" manufacturer that would make small batches at a time. They would have to commit to a lot more production in advance then they were comfortable with. In China, there are lots of small manufacturers that will do smaller batch jobs with no problem. So-called Free Trade has eroded our manufacturing base and once it is gone, it isn't likely to ever come back. All those stories about American manufacturing coming back are mostly anecdotal. For everyone coming back, two are leaving. Beware of when both parties endorse something like Free Trade because you know for sure that the country has been sold down the river.
QuoteBasically it boils down to this, if the dredging doesn't happen in Jax it will happen in Miami
Dredging in Miami is already underway and they are doing a fine job of destroying the coral reefs in Biscayne Bay. http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/10/miami_deep_dredge_environmentalists_win_battle_but_not_war_as_blasting_cont.php (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/10/miami_deep_dredge_environmentalists_win_battle_but_not_war_as_blasting_cont.php)
Miami is also going to 50 feet, the depth many analysts have said is one of the criteria of being a post-Panamax ready port.
Savannah is set to start dredging and has already received a commitment of funding from the Georgia legislature. Savannah is already the fastest growing port in the country, currently move three times as much cargo as Jax, and they were included in the President's budget. Charleston is going to 52 feet and is also in the budget.
The bottom line is that Miami is funded and the dredging is already underway. The other major East Coast ports are also better positioned and much farther ahead of Jax in the process, too.
We might want to start giving serious consideration to Plan B.
^I believe we should have been seriously considering a Plan B years ago.
I must question the quote in the main article:
QuoteIf consumer goods were actually produced in the United States, the ports would be far less important.
You mean...
If consumer goods were actually produced in the United States, the ports would be
far MORE important to export.
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on February 26, 2015, 11:29:18 AM
I must question the quote in the main article:
QuoteIf consumer goods were actually produced in the United States, the ports would be far less important.
You mean...
If consumer goods were actually produced in the United States, the ports would be far MORE important to export.
-Josh
We import more goods than we export. If consumer goods that we get from Asia (textiles, electronics, shitty plastic things) were manufactured in the US, ports
would be less important. We would simply stop importing those things, we wouldn't start exporting cheap manufactured goods all over the world. Of course, we wouldn't just up and start producing those goods, they are still cheaper to have them made in Asia (cheap labor) and then shipped to the US. If we weren't subsidizing port infrastructure, it might not be so cheap to import those goods. I believe that is the main point of what you quoted. Of course, it is also very simplistic as the system we have is not exactly free-trade, so we have barriers in place for shipping (tariffs, Jones Act, etc) at the same time as we are subsidizing this infrastructure.
Good to see a reasoned, intellectual analysis that recognizes facts which have been overwhelmed by the PR blitz. And let's not forget, while we merrily spend tax dollars to subsidize foreign shipping, that the real industry metric used to decide how much port business you get is container movements. How many containers can you offload an hour and how quickly can we have that ship back underway? That's the real number we need to look at, and it is driven by cross the dock infrastructure and labor efficiencies, not channel depth at all.
QuoteThe bottom line is that Miami is funded and the dredging is already underway. The other major East Coast ports are also better positioned and much farther ahead of Jax in the process, too.
We might want to start giving serious consideration to Plan B.
I've been saying this for years, even when Anderson was in charge of JaxPORT, it makes sense to play to our strengths, Aggregates, Coal, the new LNG, the fuel depot. We can have some containers, but with Savannah and Brunswick so close, we would be better off working on solutions that incorporate a Regional Partnership, instead of competing with every city to see who can kill our river and marine ecosystems, all in the name of jobs that may NEVER appear after its all said and done.
I have been against dredging and expanding JaxPort, but something else to consider for the side in favor of dredging is the fact that West Coast ports are now just recovering and moving massive backlog from an effective multi-month strike and showdown with the ILA union. The 2nd time in a decade actually (makes me hate unions - these assholes get paid $200k to push a fucking button and they're all thugs; their actions have wreaked economic havoc and wrecked countless other people's lives, not the least of which are our nation's farmers already suffering from droughts this year).
It seems to have partially killed the ports out here. And their (the union members') greed has also put a lot of people out of business, including (likely in the future) themselves as port activity is forecast to really dwindle out here. For about a year now (everyone knew there were contract issues for a solid year now and CA is not right to work at all) businesses, importers/exporters, and farmers have been formulating ways to avoid the major ports on the West Coast. And in fact, on both sides - from the strike in 2004 - there are still clients lost overseas who never forgave their grievances from the prior strike (and that put a lot of people such as farmers out of business then, never to recover) and there are shippers who never came back to the W Coast.
As an example of this, Hanjin (which also does business through JaxPort) has pulled out of Portland for good. Portland and JaxPort are similar in scale. LA/Long Beach, Oakland, and Seattle/Tacoma are too big to completely abandon, but many shippers are eager to make more use out of E Coast and Gulf Coast ports, and many companies are getting creative with ways to avoid the W Coast and use other means, even if it's not direct shipping.
What all of this has done is terrible for the consumer as prices have gone up dramatically, or will go up if they have not done so. It's pathetic, but United Steelworkers had a strike in solidarity as well (which is having real effects on an already unionized, expensive, construction cycle which has already seen labor and material shortage).
I guess what I'm saying is that FL is a very pro-business, right to work state. Even NY is pro-business compared to CA. Which is pathetically sad. So there may be something to capitalize on.
^^^Always on point. ::)
Well their direct actions are having direct effects on both W Coast (detrimental) and E Coast (beneficial) ports, which is what this thread is about. This thread is not about mortgage brokers.
You're entitled to your opinions, but do realize that most people do not share your sympathy for the unions.
^^^Well I see you want to go down that road. Their jobs are otherwise easily replaceable without a union contract. Their job is not rocket science and pays better than 99% of jobs out there. It doesn't require a brain surgeon. Legal parameters in place in CA and some other states allow their job to be far more important as a direct tie to the individual within a collective unit that has that job, than it needs to be.
For instance, if I don't think I'm paid well enough or treated fairly, then there are avenues I can navigate that may, or may not result in an outcome favorable to me. There are not that many people in the world who can replace me, so me as an individual on my own have some leverage based on the skillset and knowledge base I have gained for myself, however, I AM replaceable and I must keep my employer content with me on my own merit. It is up to me to prove my worth and negotiate it. It is up to me to look out for me. And there are laws in place that do prevent the obvious - no slave labor, no sexual harassment, etc.
So it can be argued that these people should unionize because there are a TON of people who can replace them if they aren't up to par, and that way they get job security. Well they also get way more pay than they otherwise would. It's a legal system, in other words, that results in these things we call strikes, that have utterly crippling effects for a lot of other people, mostly middle class people actually. It's not the individual importance of their job or their individual ability to do their job. It's the fact that CA legal parameters have allowed this particular job to be fully unionized and so it's not one position that is important or unimportant, it's the fact that 1 body becomes the entire workforce through the union.
It's no different when transit workers strike and then nobody else can get to work or where they need to be because a few uneducated button pushers who make $90-125k a year before massive benefits can do that because the legal setup allows their position to be fully unionized, and therefore irreplaceable. It's not that they are that important, individually, or that they couldn't otherwise just be replaced by literally millions of others who can do that job (and would LOVE that job), or that they are actually underpaid for what they do, it's a system that allows them to take advantage of others, in this case, taxpayers.
So while you might run in circles who are super pro-union, most people recognize that in this day and age they are job and efficiency killers.
At the end of the day, THIS union, the ILA, is directly related to the point at hand. Yes I got political on it, because it IS political. Unions and politics may result in a game changing variable for JaxPort. The politics that breed a more business friendly environment (FL) combined with the politics that result in these business unfriendly calamities back west can turn the tides for Jaxport. Mortgage bankers have nothing to do with it.
What's annoying is how static you are in your views towards everything. Like your predictable interjection about mortgage bankers. Completely irrelevant. And completely political. At least try to be more dynamic in your thoughts - it's almost like you quit growing ages ago and haven't been receptive or open to new ideas or different political views ever since. Most people I know, on BOTH sides of the aisle, go back and forth on issues and are constantly growing and learning as they go along, and their views on things change as a result. You must be stuck in a limbo because you have the most predictably repertoire of views and opinions about everything.
^^^But none of what you say is logical. Well, it's not that it's not logical, it's that you abandon all of the important facts.
1) My point wasn't about evil unions, as a standalone post about evil unions. It's that A LOT of people are pissed at the unions, enough so based on union actions that they are taking their business elsewhere, and potentially, Jax stands to benefit. So the whole post was quite relevant, even the political aspect of it.
1a) You latched onto the most granular aspects of my almost entirely relevant post and turned this whole thing into a political debate about something bigger than Jaxport, which is something you're really good at doing. And so thus this will be my last post on this issue and you can have the last word, which I know you love.
2) Everyone has a contract. True. Anything is meaningless without a contract, at the end of the day. The difference between MOST people's contracts and a union contract is that MOST people have a contract with an employer between themself and the employer, and there are no outside parties that have influence over said contract, merely standard employment law and what was negotiated on an INDIVIDUAL basis based on the criteria of the job description and the skills and assets that said employee brings to the table to meet or even gasp, exceed, that criteria.
A union employee has a contract with the UNION, and so their employment contract is essentially collective. The UNION does the negotiating for them. This defeats their individual importance and the whole notion of performance, however, it does allow them to remain employed and even compensated in a way absolutely incommensurate with their performance or their skill set.
The UNION essentially REVERSES everything you said about individual worth or value.
3) "People being paid properly..."
I think that's where you and I/most people have a problem here. A transit station worker in San Francisco makes a base salary about in line with mine. Granted they don't get paid a bonus, however, they could easily be pulling in $100k/year to sit in a chair and essentially do nothing, and it's not like they have student debt. They can take a boatload of sick days, or even just not show up.
Keep in mind, while also unionized, public school teachers are on average making FAR less. You tell me who you would pay more, on average, keeping everything under consideration. An inner city high school calculus teacher? Or a bus driver? If the bus driver, would it be 20, 30, or even 40% more than the math teacher?
You see, a union contract takes individual negotiating power away from an employer's hands. And in both of the cases above, at the end of the day, the employer is the taxpayer.
I know your answer to this. Which seems more "out of line"?
A crane operator with no college education earns $200k, Cadillac benefits, strict 40 hr work weeks, pension that equates to 85-100% of final year base pay for the rest of his life after say a whopping 10 or 15 years of "service", and guaranteed contractual job security for years to come because that's what his/her union negotiated on his/her behalf.
A Wharton grad with an impressive resume who is willing to work 100-110 hour weeks underwriting M&A transactions that put whole companies on the public markets and allow every day Joe Schmoes like the crane operator to invest (either directly or through pension), possibly making [everyday] people millions or billions of dollars, a starting base of $130k with bonus anywhere from 25-100% commensurate with performance. Standard benefits, and maybe 401k match up to 3-6% after vesting for a certain period.
Either one may have a family to feed and a mortgage, so no need to get all wishy washy and emotional. Only one worked hard to get into a top university and likely has immense student debt as a result - a risk taken to try to eek ahead some day.
You may think the crane operator is worth far more. But at the end of the day, in only the latter case are you even sitting at the table with the prospective employee and negotiating compensation and benefits.
Pardon those of us who look at the above situation and see how backward it really is.
I'm sure if the ports had non-union labor, the wages would cut in half, and we would all see cheaper retail pricing. Just like when US made goods were moved off shore for child labor/sweat shops, your retail price on Levi's and many other goods (Coach Purses) went down to reflect the reduced labor. (this of course did not happen) Prices remained high, and stockholders and executives got bonuses for saving more beans. Some unions age good, and some are not.
You may want to act indignant at stephen's response and make like your original post was just about the Jaxport issue with just some background info on the west coast to support it, but go back and read it. It sure reads like a convenient excuse for you to go union bashing.
Quote from: simms3 on March 09, 2015, 05:25:03 PM
I think that's where you and I/most people have a problem here. A transit station worker in San Francisco makes a base salary about in line with mine. Granted they don't get paid a bonus, however, they could easily be pulling in $100k/year to sit in a chair and essentially do nothing, and it's not like they have student debt. They can take a boatload of sick days, or even just not show up.
Quote from: simms3 on March 09, 2015, 05:25:03 PM
A crane operator with no college education earns $200k, Cadillac benefits, strict 40 hr work weeks, pension that equates to 85-100% of final year base pay for the rest of his life after say a whopping 10 or 15 years of "service", and guaranteed contractual job security for years to come because that's what his/her union negotiated on his/her behalf.
Sooo...you get all your "facts" from breitbart? That $200k number is bonkers. Non-union California dock workers make $20-30k, which is basically subsistence living. ILWU's base rate is about $35/hour for senior workers, then they have shift and skill adjustments (night, holiday, certifications) that put the average
senior employee at about $50/hour. So that is about $100k if you are working full time. Add in overtime for some jobs (crane operators are in high demand - also, do you think your job actually requires more skill than operating a crane?) and you might get up into $140k/year territory. Maybe there is a single crane operator making $200k, and he's probably working 84 hours a week inside of a small box that is suspended in the air. And all those benefits are included in that $200k. That's two jobs as far as I am concerned, doesn't seem too overpaid to me, especially given the COL (divided all numbers by 2 for Jacksonville money, people). Also, his level of education is immaterial, unless you just want to make this issue about class. Did your four years of drinking really prepare you for your job as well as this guy's training and apprenticeship prepared him for his?
Over $200k would be clerks and other experienced, high level people. Basically managers. Does management not qualify as a level of employment that you see fit for earning a high income?
Strict 40 hour work weeks? Nope. Some work a lot more than that, most work less. Hours are a major part of this labor dispute. Average income for a full time worker (with overtime) is about $140k. Average income across all workers is about $83k, so a lot of people are working part time and making a lot less. Max pension is negotiated to $91k/year, so be careful you aren't basing that pension % on your inflated incomes. It is just based on base pay, without the working adjustments. Not exactly a golden parachute.
Are these guys paid more than they are worth? Probably. But where in the rules of free market capitalism does it say these guys aren't allowed to organize and collectively bargain. So they're overplaying their hand which may eventually lead to their demise. Are they not allowed to do that? Do you want the government to come in and tell them what to do?
And why is what you do, which you seem to think so very highly of, more important than what they do? Is labor less important to our economy than writing out paragraph's long diatribes against those evil laborers while simultaneously waxing philosophical about the importance of your job and how hard you work at it? I think those guys were probably lifting heavy things while you wrote your responses on this internet forum.
Quote from: simms3 on March 09, 2015, 05:25:03 PM
A Wharton grad with an impressive resume who is willing to work 100-110 hour weeks underwriting M&A transactions that put whole companies on the public markets and allow every day Joe Schmoes like the crane operator to invest (either directly or through pension), possibly making [everyday] people millions or billions of dollars, a starting base of $130k with bonus anywhere from 25-100% commensurate with performance. Standard benefits, and maybe 401k match up to 3-6% after vesting for a certain period.
I did not realize mergers and acquisitions was God's work. Forget Mother Teresa, we should be canonizing all these suffering, altruistic investment bankers.
How do you think people should be paid? By amount of schooling? By an IQ test? Perhaps a more formal class system can be put in place so these
laborers don't accumulate too much money while us
thinkers and making a real difference?
Also, while organized labor may at times overstep what we find reasonable, don't forget where all those workplace protections you mentioned come from. Or what conditions were like for workers in those positions 100 years ago. Just because we have protective laws today doesn't mean the companies have become any less ruthless. Get rid of organized labor completely, which seems to be what you and many other union-bashers want, and you will certainly see companies reverting to the abusive practices they employed in the past. You think you are some kind of crusader for the free market, but that's not what you're advocating for. What you are advocating for, whether you realize it or not, are corporate profits. Nothing wrong with corporate profits, but you seem to think it is more important than the welfare of the people creating that profit.