Slashdot Mirror


The Box That Built the Modern World

HughPickens.com writes: Andrew Curry has an interesting article about how more than any other single innovation, the shipping container epitomizes the enormity, sophistication, and importance of our modern transportation system. It's invisible to most people, but fundamental to how practically everything in our consumer-driven lives works. "Think of the shipping container as the Internet of thing," says Curry. "Just as your email is disassembled into discrete bundles of data the minute you hit send, then re-assembled in your recipient's inbox later, the uniform, ubiquitous boxes are designed to be interchangeable, their contents irrelevant." Last year the world's container ports moved 560 million 20-foot containers. Even cars and trucks—known in the trade as "RoRo," or "roll-on, roll-off" cargo—are increasingly being loaded into containers rather than specialized ships. "Containers are just a lot easier," says James Rice. "A box is a box. All you need is a vessel, a berth, and a place to put the container on the ground.

Consider the economics of a T-shirt sewn at a factory near Beijing. The total time in transit for a typical box from a Chinese factory to a customer in Europe might be as little as 35 days. Cost per shirt? "Less than one U.S. cent," says Rainer Horn. "It doesn't matter anymore where you produce something now, because transport costs aren't important."

216 comments

  1. There's still the pollution thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you buy local, you need less transport

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then you need to build local. That ain't happening in the West. We do nothing.

    2. Re:There's still the pollution thing by DamonHD · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But quite possibly no less cost, time, energy or carbon.

      It can take more energy/cost/etc to ship something inefficiently within your local state/county/etc than to get it shipped efficiently from China.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    3. Re:There's still the pollution thing by khallow · · Score: 2

      Introducing economic inefficiencies also creates pollution. And if all you do is buy local, then how are you ever going to taste the variety of foods world-wide?

    4. Re:There's still the pollution thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's carry every idea past the absurd...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >> There's still the pollution thing
      >> If you buy local, you need less transport

      > But quite possibly no less cost, time, energy or carbon.
      > It can take more energy/cost/etc to ship something inefficiently within your local state/county/etc than to get it shipped efficiently from China.

      I think you're separating things when you should not. It's kinda like mixing "apples and oranges", but on the opposite direction. IMHO, as the OP indicates, pollution is part of the cost which has received low weight until now and shall get a heavy weight from now on. Even if shipping is not expensive, pollution in China might force an extra tax at the destiny of the shipment to take into account the cleansing costs of the pollution involved.

      Another point:

      TFS> The total time in transit for a typical box from a Chinese factory to a customer in Europe might be as little as 35 days.

      That's nice and it works for new products. I bought a Chinese car, which worked fine, but I could not get a decorative plastic which fell (or was stolen). After 6 months waiting, I considered how things would go if another (important) part broke. I sold the car and now consider their 6-year warranty promise as ineffective.

      Too far means no support. To be fair, that has been my experience with American software, too.

    6. Re:There's still the pollution thing by HairyNevus · · Score: 1

      It can take more energy/cost/etc to ship something inefficiently within your local state/county/etc than to get it shipped efficiently from China.

      Sorry, sir but I'm gonna have to issue you a [citation needed].

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    7. Re:There's still the pollution thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you buy local, you need less transport

      Transport costs are very low, and energy used in transport is likely a lot lower than you think (which is why the cost is low). If you live in California, you may think you are being "green" by eating local California grapes instead of grapes from Chile. But you are wrong. The California grapes are grown with energy intensive irrigation. The water is pumped for hundreds of miles. The Chilean grapes are grown with rainwater. That makes a much bigger difference than the transport of the final product.

      As a general rule of thumb, the product produced with the least resources, is the one with the lowest price.

    8. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But quite possibly no less cost, time, energy or carbon.

      It can take more energy/cost/etc to ship something inefficiently within your local state/county/etc than to get it shipped efficiently from China.

      Rgds

      Damon

      What the fuck is "efficiently" shipped from China.

      You do understand how cargo ships work? And the literal crap they burn for fuel.

      Rgds

      Not Damon

    9. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, the West actually has zero productivity, that's why the factories don't exist.

      Y'know, except they do, and their employees are shrinking because the technology keeps getting better than the demand.

    10. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not necessarily. You have to take into account the efficiency of the transport. From the figures I've seen, the fuel cost to ship something from China to the U.S. is about the same as the fuel cost to transport it from a U.S. port to its final destination inland (the U.S. has a terrible rail system so most goods are transported by relatively inefficient trucks).

      Assuming the 1 cent to transport a T-shirt from China figure is correct, if you're driving more than 500 feet to buy your "local" T-shirt, you're producing more pollution buying from that local store. It's even questionable if walking that distance has a smaller pollution footprint because of the energy cost needed to produce the food you ate which powers your walk to the local store. (And no, you cannot bypass this by growing a home garden. People vastly underestimate how much land is needed to grow the food we eat. Now factor in the energy needed to work all that land, and you'll quickly find that you'll need to increase your daily caloric intake to 5000-8000 kcal/day if you farm that by hand. There's a very good reason we shifted that inefficient labor-intensive task to being done by machines.)

      Maximum energy efficiency is achieved when you multitask and group multiple tasks together. That's how buying stuff on Amazon can end up cheaper with a smaller energy footprint than buying stuff locally. Yes if Amazon were to ship just one T-shirt to you and UPS sent a truck out to deliver just one T-shirt to your house, it' be horribly inefficient. But that UPS truck makes a hundred or so deliveries on its daily route so the portion of its total drive attributable to your T-shirt package delivery is only a few hundred or few thousand feet. Likewise Amazon processes millions of orders every day, so the portion of its operating costs attributable to your single order is very small. This is also the same reason the big department stores end up being able to offer lower prices than the small mom and pop shop - greater volume of sales generates more opportunity for efficiency improvements. If you can come up with a way to combine big box efficiency with the mom and pop buying experience, you'll become the next billionaire.

    11. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What the fuck is "efficiently" shipped from China.

      You do understand how cargo ships work? And the literal crap they burn for fuel.

      More containers than you can count, all bound for the same destination, all travelling in a single ship. Granted, that ships burns a lot of fuel, but that's still more efficient than most other ways of shipping that number of containers. Short of bringing back sails (which has been floated a few times) container ships are among the most efficient means of freight transport across long distances.

      As for the "literal" crap they burn for fuel, first read a dictionary, and second that crap would otherwise go to waste. It's cheap to produce and relatively cleanly used.

    12. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh yes, I'm typing at my Canadian keyboard on my American computer sitting on my locally produced chair.... Wait, let me check. IKEA desk, made in China, keyboard, computer, chair, all China, as a matter of fact, the only things I have that are built in North America is my collection of vintage test gear.

      And this technology that keeps getting better, when will I see a reduced workweek because of it?

    13. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this flamebait? I've been assured, nay, promised, that we'll 3D print food at home. I see no reason why I can't download mangoes and papayas any time now. Any time ... now! Ok, any time... NOW!!

      Um....

    14. Re:There's still the pollution thing by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Ah, my numbers come from course materials that may not be public, but I believe that I have had them corroborated, eg when pricing up our own manufacturing costs.

      Would be happy to be shown to be wrong, but the point is for us that in making plastics locally in the UK vs China I think that transport (which will at least partly reflect energy for example) is more or less a rounding error.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    15. Re:There's still the pollution thing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Define: less.

      You certainly need to travel less distance. However, modern container ships are fearsomely efficient. They've been banging on about "green" and "low carbon" recently, but they've always been practicing that since it reduces costs and increases the very slim profit margins.

      In terms of shipping, it'll take easily as much, probably substantially more carbon getting the goods from the dock to your door as it does getting them from China to your nearest major container port. The engines on those ships hit over 50% thermal efficiency for the best of them, which is second only giant land based combined cycle plants (it's better than coal plants). That combined with immense volume (drag is related to area, so size pays off well) and slow speed means that container ships are quite astonishingly efficient.

      I crunched the numbers once for curiosity and was amazed by the results.

      Buying local can save a bit, but not nearly as much as you think. Nonetheless, there's still other good reasons for buying local, and I try to do it where possible.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    16. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Factories in the western world still exist, but as hipster lofts and malls.

    17. Re:There's still the pollution thing by CharlieG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct. People don't realize how fuel EFFICIENT shipping really is. At "Slow" speeds (18 knots) where more than 1/2 the worlds cargo ships run, and figuring a 9000-10000 TEU ship (aka holds 9000-10000 20 ft containers, 1/2 that if all 40Ft boxes) - the ship will typically burn 100 Tons of fuel/day - or 1/100th of a ton of fuel per container/day, and roughly (because bunker C - the 'crap they burn' - Now there are roughly depending on exact fuel 250-280 gallons/ton of fuel - so it takes about 1/4 gallon of fuel per DAY to move each one of those containers. But the joke? Go to the online shipping calculators - China to west coast USA (where it will get put on a train) - 15 days, NOT 15. So you are talking roughly 3.75 gallons of fuel to move that container of tee-shirts from China to the US - that's the container, all the goods etc.
      Work the math. You probably burn more fuel per shirt driving to the store, picking up the shirt, and driving home than shipping it from China takes. Remember - ships float, and take surprisingly little fuel per ton to move freight. It is why canals were such a big deal back when - a full barge of coal or gravel or whatever could be moved by ONE horse.

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    18. Re:There's still the pollution thing by kencurry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a big factor: the cheapness and distance shipped have us moving to a disposable model vs. repair. I just went through this with a washing machine and a lawn mower. The washing machine was LG; very hard to find a schematic with labeled parts. I had to guess and was wrong twice. I didn't bother to ship back the wrong parts as they were about 10 bucks, shipping was also about 10 bucks. So I threw the bad ones away.

      Same issue with the lawnmower. Was a Yard Machines mower with Briggs & Stratton engine. tried the 800 number (was still under warrantee) which was a total joke. Web site was confusing and useless. Did not recognize my engine serial number to send me into someplace that I could get engine info/troubleshooting/parts list.

      Ended up taking it to a local place where the Mexicanos who ran it figured out the problem and fixed the mower (In your face Donald Trump!)

      So, while in theory the cost of these appliances and the world efficiency is improved with the model of cheap parts&labor from China. The reality is a lot of wasted time, shipping wrong replacement parts, and giving up and tossing out the old piece-o-crap to a landfill and buying something new.

      I am not buying into the purported efficiencies posted here.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    19. Re:There's still the pollution thing by KGIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's okay - we were told, just a few days ago, that the most important innovation was the refrigerator. Now it's a shipping container. Maybe next week it will be the transistor. At this point, I guess all we're supposed to do is howl and screech like monkeys and occasionally throw poop at one another in a maelstrom of conflicting information.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    20. Re:There's still the pollution thing by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      the U.S. has a terrible rail system so most goods are transported by relatively inefficient trucks).

      Why are you talking about something you know nothing about? The US has an incredibly efficient rail system in terms of goods, and the vast majority of products are moved by rail, where it is then transported to its final destination by truck. Sure, Amtrak sucks, in most of the US it uses freight rail and takes second place to freight.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    21. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when will I see a reduced workweek?

      You probably won't, but someone else will.

      We used to have two guys working 40 hours per week, but now that we have robotics, we only need one guy working 40 hours per week and the robot costs less than the guy it replaced!

    22. Re:There's still the pollution thing by CharlieG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      BTW, when you work it out to 34000 teeshirts/container, that total use of fuel is .00011 gallons of fuel to move that shirt from China to the US - so say I'm off on my numbers by a factor of 10, so it took 1/1000 of a gallon of fuel to move that shirt trans pacific. Now if we figure 10 Kilos of CO2/Gallon (Per the US EIA), we are talking .01 Kilos of CO2. Assume you live a 20 minute round trip to the store, and weigh 160 lbs (adult male) - aka 10 minutes walk to the store, 10 mins back - the formula I saw said .00002lbs of CO2 emitted per minute walking per lb of person, so you emit .029 kilos of CO2 walking to and from the store, YES, nearly THREE times the CO2 as transporting the shirt from China. Interesting to put in in perspective, isn't it? And THAT is saying my numbers are off by 10x - my actual number shows you are emitting 30x the CO2 walking to the store and back

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    23. Re:There's still the pollution thing by lgw · · Score: 2

      Shipping by sea via large container ships is astonishingly efficient, which is the whole point here. (Plus, pollution at sea isn't a concern - it's already quite diluted, and there just aren't that many ships.) It seems reasonable that, per-pound, the ocean voyage take less energy than 100 miles on the road in a truck.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      It's even questionable if walking that distance has a smaller pollution footprint because of the energy cost needed to produce the food you ate which powers your walk to the local store. (And no, you cannot bypass this by growing a home garden. People vastly underestimate how much land is needed to grow the food we eat.

      I take it you've never worked a vegetable garden, then? In theory you may be right. But your example is waaaayyy off the mark, especially using that link above as reference.

      I have worked a vegetable garden for about a year, it was around 150-200 m^2 (around 1900 sq. feet?). And food that came out was moooore than enough to supply a 3-people household with all the fresh vegetables, potatoes, corn, pumpkins, and beans that we could eat. Not entirely year-round, but that was due to the more interesting problem of how to store all the produce. A lot was given away, some went to waste, a little even got stolen. Point being: the numbers given in above link don't add up, unless you're extremely bad at growing food.

      Now factor in the energy needed to work all that land, and you'll quickly find that you'll need to increase your daily caloric intake to 5000-8000 kcal/day if you farm that by hand. There's a very good reason we shifted that inefficient labor-intensive task to being done by machines.

      Again that's waaaay off the mark. 5000-8000 kcal/day is top athlete territory, the kind of energy burnt by pro cyclists in the Tour de France. For gardening, there's a few short weeks of 'heavy lifting' at the start of a season. No reason you couldn't do some of that using machines, btw. For the rest it's mostly remove weeds, keep an eye on things, watering, etc. Far from the kind of activity that pushes your body's energy consumption up. About as energy-intensive as walking from shop to to shop in a big mall.

      Btw. that's gardening in a small plot in moderate climate. In warmer or tropical climate you may grow stuff all year round and have 2 or 3 crops per season.

    25. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, while in theory the cost of these appliances and the world efficiency is improved with the model of cheap parts&labor from China. The reality is a lot of wasted time, shipping wrong replacement parts, and giving up and tossing out the old piece-o-crap to a landfill and buying something new.

      That conclusion is dependant on the value of your time (or a hired appliance repair dude @ $70/hr) looking up and understanding the schematic, deducing the cause of the failure, figuring out which part or parts need to be replaced and then doing the repair, adjusted for the probability of making a mistake anywhere in the process. Compare that with the number of engineer-hours required to design the thing, maintain the production lines and run the distribution apparatus (all of it) divided into the number of units produced. You might find that you just spent more time repairing your unit than was (amortized) spent on the entire rest of its lifetime ...

      I guess another way of saying this is that every good has an optimal level of reliability -- beyond which it costs less to regularly replace the failing units than to improve the process or to provide for repairs. We could probably build a washer (or a car, or a hard drive) that lasts longer than the ones we have today, but what would the point be if the TCO was actually higher? Unless you were running the Presidential Motorcade or going all Mad Max, would you buy a car that failed half as often if the TCO was $300/mo instead of $200/mo (and that's including cost of repairs plus your time and inconvenience to bring it to the shop already priced in)? Would Amazon buy more reliable hard drives for AWS (if they were on the market) or would they just buy the cheap ones and build in redundancy? Does my small business website need 99.99% uptime or is 99.9% sufficient? Will the business I lose in the 40 minutes per month difference make up the cost? We can always throw more money at any good/process to make it more reliable -- but there has to be some stopping point where we decide that the marginal gains no longer make sense.

      Another aspect to keep in mind is that doing things more reliably at global-scale means paying attention to all those nines. Just like getting from 99.9% uptime to 99.99% is going to cost more than each previous SLA, so to is the calculation for every input to the washer, plus the process/machinery that assembles it, plus the process/machinery that tests it. The acceptable marginal failure rate is going to scale against the marginal cost for increasing reliability.

      [ And interestingly enough, Speed Queen does specialize in super-simple super-reliable washers and dryers, largely for the commercial (coin-op) market where downtime is more expensive. If it means a lot to you for your washer, by all means pay more for one and rest easier. Last I checked, they were more than 3x the upfront cost though, meaning that even if your other washer breaks twice out of warranty and is totally unrepairable and you have to buy a new one, you're still ahead! ]

    26. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I vote for the toilet. I can't see heading outside in the cold to sit on a cold toilet seat. It would definitely cut into the reading I get done.

    27. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you won't. The way to do that is already known. You have local management respond to the needs of the place they're in, employing local store associates who get decent amounts of hours and decent pay such that they make an actual career out of retail and get to know their products and customers.

      You know, the opposite of what big retailers actually do.

    28. Re:There's still the pollution thing by MountainLogic · · Score: 2

      CharlieG, Really good information about water based transport, but regrettably far too few containers get put onto rail cars. Your comments about the bunker C is frightening for particulate and chemical pollution. However, our ports are becoming a real crunch point. Container ships drop a huge bolus of containers into the heart of our metro areas with insufficient or non-existant rail capacity to handle the load resulting in trucks jamming our roads. Our ports desperately need to build out their rail connects as well as upgrading to handle the ever larger ships. Also our trunk rail line capacity is being bought up in big single buys for bulk cargo (i.e., coal & oil) so even getting space on rail for containers is hard. We desperately need our Port Authorities to invest in rail connections and even long haul rail lines to keep our freeway open. Cough, cough, Ports of Seattle and Tacoma it is time to restore the Old Milwaukie line over Snoqualmie Pass to Spokane to reduce traffic overhead, speed deliveries and assure schedule reliability (how often are deliveries delayed by road/traffic closures?) for cargo. The restored rail line would do more to fix Seattle traffic than all the transit and new freeways being proposed by taking these truck off the roads.
      CharlieG, have to disagree with 3.75 gallon round trip to the mall for most americans even with a monster SUV. Add in schlepping the t-shirt around from warehouse to warehouse and then to store and you may be right on total land fule usage. Another side note, products with a tight market window such as smart phones fly and that is a wholly different animal in terms of fuel usage.

    29. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      So in essence you didn't throw anything out except those parts that YOU ordered in error.

    30. Re:There's still the pollution thing by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think they were going for more modern. Indoor plumbing has been around since at least the Romans and I think I saw a documentary that had some toilets in India in one of the abandoned cities whose name I've long since forgotten.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    31. Re:There's still the pollution thing by MountainLogic · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed, we did have a great rail system, but it has been perverted by energy companies exporting coal and oil. The coal and oil companies have cut monopolistic deals to buy up all the capacity on many lines. They are able to do this by making big buys. This has forced others who ship periodically to rely on much more expensive trucks. In some cases farmers who have used these lines for over 100 years have not been able to get product to market because trucking cost more than their profit. Also our rail lines are perpetually in decay and we are loosing many miles of feeder lines that service warehouse and factories districts every year causing a reverse Metcalf effect that will eventually kill the utility of our critical rail system.

    32. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      But I cant get slave labor built devices for really low prices locally. I have to actually pay living wages and that's unamerican!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    33. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Define: less.

      You certainly need to travel less distance. However, modern container ships are fearsomely efficient. They've been banging on about "green" and "low carbon" recently, but they've always been practicing that since it reduces costs and increases the very slim profit margins.

      The ships are running on some really dirty cheap diesel though that is not legal to use in any country on Earth, but unregulated in international waters. So while they don't contribute much CO2 they contribute a large amount of the rest of the harmfull emmissions from fossil fuels.

    34. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 2

      Harappa?

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    35. Re:There's still the pollution thing by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      far too few containers get put onto rail cars.

      This. Rail transport is incredibly efficient, compared to trucks or planes. One of the rail companies has a radio ad that touts something like "one gallon of fuel to move a ton 300 miles". Yet, often goods get thrown onto trucks for long-haul transport.

      I get that it is logistically more difficult to put something on to a train, but damn, they're efficient.

    36. Re:There's still the pollution thing by khallow · · Score: 1

      What's supposed to be absurd about my observation?

    37. Re:There's still the pollution thing by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's true. I was referring specifically to carbon footprint.

      The usual nasty pollutant in heavy fuel oil is sulphur. It's completely unregulated in international waters, however for costal regions and the North Sea, the EU and USA and Canada regulate sulphur much more heavily, interestingly with the US leading the pack. Though there's complex network of exemptions and etc which make it hard to follow.

      Apparently there are actual global laws (presumably enforced as "if you use that fuel you can't dock here"?), but they cap sulphur at a whopping 4.5% of the fuel content! There are some internationally recognised "low---and by low we mean high but not as insanely high as elsewhere" sulphur areas where it's capped to the still immense 1.5%.

      Apparently, the problem is that ships are designed to run on the super cheap stuff which requires steam heating just to get it to move: the residuals. Low sulphur fuels are all distillates. The desulphurisation processes doesn't work on the residuals because there's too much nasty random crap in there. Currently to switch to distillates would be a substantial increase in cost (2x, I've seen quoted) in the fuel oil.

      It seems like regulations are coming painfully slowly. But they will come eventually.

      At that point shipping will probably be substantially more expensive, albeit still very low and will have the low carbon foot print it still does.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    38. Re: There's still the pollution thing by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      That's cogent and insightful. Why'd you post anonymously?

    39. Re:There's still the pollution thing by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Real soon now. And by 'reduced work week', you will likely be given a 'no work for you this week. soup-kitchen is across town.' schedule.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    40. Re:There's still the pollution thing by HairyNevus · · Score: 2

      If we're just talking shipping from a Chinese port to a U.S. port, sure. That will take less energy per pound than 100 miles in a truck. What I (mis?)understood was the claim that shipping a product from just within a state or county would still be less efficient than ordering the product all the way from China. That's clearly not the case as when the product arrives in the U.S. it would have to undergo those inefficient miles in a truck (unless you lived in a port city), possibly across multiple state lines. So, I don't see why DamonHD's comment is deemed so Insightful when replying to fustakrakich's point that local is less miles.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    41. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Kjella · · Score: 1

      This is a big factor: the cheapness and distance shipped have us moving to a disposable model vs. repair. I just went through this with a washing machine and a lawn mower. The washing machine was LG; very hard to find a schematic with labeled parts. I had to guess and was wrong twice. I didn't bother to ship back the wrong parts as they were about 10 bucks, shipping was also about 10 bucks. So I threw the bad ones away.

      Actually being able to ship parts for peanuts from a warehouse in China should have made it easier to find obscure parts, not harder so that's not really it. The real reason is that it's not worth it except for really expensive products. With low transport costs we can centralize production and get economics of scale. It's hard to make one repairman go faster or require less training, it's easier to make an assembly line churn out products faster. Beyond the warranty period (where I haven't had trouble using it) the cost of repair often exceeds the marginal extension of the life time, after all I won't have a new product afterwards. I have a repaired, old and used out of warranty product that might fail next year too. And first I have to bring it in and get an estimate of whether it's repairable and what that'll cost, I have downtime while it's being repaired. The latter is not a trivial hassle if you have only one device and you need it to work.

      That turns into a bad cycle, the less items are worth repairing the less common and profitable being a repairman gets and being easy to fix has less value so they start making the products cheaper to build, but harder to repair. If you just glue it all together with superglue and make it 1% cheaper and save 1% on warranty repairs that's more profitable than making it easy to fix. And to take one area where components are supposedly very interchanging, I recently had a computer die on me. I was thinking I could maybe put together a frankenbox from other parts I had lying around, well I had a machine from 2006. But that had VGA and DVI outputs, my current monitor only has HDMI and DP. But okay, I can take the GPU from the machine that just broke. And that gave me DP out, but hey, the machine bluescreen'd because the PSU wasn't built for a 250W gaming card. And so I kept going until I realized at the end of this it'll still be a crap box and ordered new parts that are all current and will all play nice with each other.

      That's why I think recycling has a better future than repairing. Pick it apart, melt it down, make something new. Or return it to the manufacturer, if they want it to sell refurbs. As a consumer I really don't want to deal with it, I just want to say this one is broken so do what you want with it, I'll just go buy me a new one right now and be back in working condition as quickly and easily as possible. Then again, I'm not a penny pincher so having some disposable cash might make me lean harder towards the easy solution than the cheapest solution. And I don't really excuse that, money exists for solving problems. But I'd rather not be an environmental dick unless I have to, if there's a green way to take that problem off my hands I'm open for that.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    42. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His comment is insightful because fuck all "buy local" hipsters to death with a rusty chainsaw.

    43. Re:There's still the pollution thing by KGIII · · Score: 2

      You know what's really cool about Slashdot? I can just barely give a hint of something I've forgotten and someone almost always chimes in with the right answer. I watch documentaries as entertainment - not education, so I don't retain them for long. Someone here, almost always, knows exactly what I mean - thanks and that's the place. Looking at the pictures makes me wonder if they had indoor plumbing or if they just had the channels in the street. I've not spent time looking deeper - just a quick right click and Google.

      I understand they've found at least a couple of them - Indus Valley archaeological sites that is - at least. I've seen a couple of different places in the documentaries. It's kind of fascinating how old their culture is and how, presumably, advanced they were for the time. Some of those ancient places are really interesting. I've thought about volunteering (you can do that) and going on a dig, say, in Turkey but I've never done it. I do have a lady friend who's in the Maine department and now works with the museum but I've only visited a dig she was doing with some UMF students out in Chesterville on the esker. I was a bit too drunk to be helping. It was fun to watch though.

      I kind of wish I retained more of what I watch but I think it might lose the magic if I try. So, they're passive and I'm just never able to remember names, dates, and that sort of thing but I actually recall quite a bunch of useless stuff but I've really been slacking on the particulars and I guess I'm okay with that. I can't fit all that into my brain without some important stuff leaking out.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    44. Re:There's still the pollution thing by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Oh, shit - sorry, I meant to say thank you but my head got running away in its own direction. Thanks. I appreciate the reminder. You guys are awesome. :D

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    45. Re:There's still the pollution thing by lgw · · Score: 1

      Depends on how far "local" actually was, and how well maintained the "local" equipment vs the high-volume shippers. But, sure, if it's UPS either way, I don't see any difference. That itself is interesting, though, no?

      My take-away is that driving to the store (vs package delivery) is the big mistake if you care about pollution, efficiency, and whatnot. The last mile dominates, and a shopping trip is an inefficient last mile.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    46. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rail lines (Northern Transcon) do already run from Seattle to Spokane; Spokane is where BNSF does its reefer car repairs. They hump freight cars in Seattle and Pasco.

      The best way to fix Seattle would be to euthanize the people who think they know more than they do.

    47. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent numbers, but remember that your CO2 output is renewable, the burning of fossil fuels is not.

      "Efficiency" is a bit of a bugbear in the AGW issue. We actually have to burn less fossil fuel to reduce non-renewable CO2 output. Making everything more efficient, by say large 1-100% factors is not sufficient.

    48. Re:There's still the pollution thing by InterGuru · · Score: 4, Informative

      You could always, as a friend of mine did, hang the toilet seat by the wood stove inside the house, and carry it out when you wanted to use it.

    49. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are, empirically, wrong. Global trade has helped people in the West (on average - some people have been hurt, but more have gained) and it's helped a lot of less-developed countries raise their standard of living. Westerners don't gain as much from global trade, but on the whole it does raise quality of life.

      As for saying efficiency makes quality of life worse - I cannot understand that opinion. Doing more with less is fantastic, and it's arguably one thing that makes us human.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    50. Re:There's still the pollution thing by bkmoore · · Score: 2

      It's okay - we were told, just a few days ago, that the most important innovation was the refrigerator...

      I vote for fire and then the wheel. Maybe someday we'll be saying, "You didn't have to reinvent the shipping container."

    51. Re:There's still the pollution thing by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The old world is still available but unfortunately most people are not interested in participating. A nice Miele washing machine can be repaired by any mechanic. My Fema coffee grinder looks like it is about 100 years old and yet I can still buy each part individually, and a modern Honda lawn mower has every bit the service and warranty you expect from a quality Japanese product (not that you need to rely on that with such a nicely made engine). If you pay real money for quality gear then repairs are still possible. My neighbour has no problem finding replacement bits for his chainsaw after 20 years, but I couldn't find the shitty replacement tensioner for my cheap electric no-name brand only 3 years after I bought it.

      There are of course exceptions to the rule. Even expensive TVs have no user serviceable parts, and if you buy a cheap Dell you're more likely to be able to replace a component then an expensive Surface.

    52. Re:There's still the pollution thing by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's okay - we were told, just a few days ago, that the most important innovation was the refrigerator. Now it's a shipping container.

      Obviously it's a shipping container full of refrigerators.

    53. Re:There's still the pollution thing by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I get that it is logistically more difficult to put something on to a train, but damn, they're efficient.

      1. They're a single point of failure. Lots of companies moved freight off rail in the UK in the 90s, because the perpetual strikes were destroying their business. If a truck company goes on strike, you call their competitor. If the train company goes on strike... tough luck.
      2. Few places now have direct rail delivery to the end-user. There are a bunch of old, rotting rail lines in the industrial areas here where the cargo could once roll right up to the factory or other industrial destination. If you have to load stuff onto a truck, take it to a rail yard, load it onto the train, load it onto a truck at the other end, and drive it to where it has to go, you may well be paying more that just taking it the whole way by truck.
      3. Freight trains are slow. Driving back from my girlfriends' parents' place on the highway, we'll usually pass several of them travelling maybe half as fast as the trucks.

      So, for rail freight to make sense, you have to be shipping something cheap enough for transport costs to matter, and unimportant enough that you don't really care whether it turns up tomorrow or next Wednesday.

    54. Re:There's still the pollution thing by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Not actually, you're just making a huge assumption.

      Giant factory farms are far, far more efficient users of energy and fuel than small family farms, it's simple economies of scale.
      Giant container ships are astonishingly cheap fuelwise, compared to trucks, so are trains.

      So yes, if you live near a giant factory farm, by all means buy local.
      Everyone else is probably better off buying from a specialized producer.

      Look, the grocery business is the most cutthroat in the world, operating huge supermarkets at margins of 1/2 percent sometimes. Nobody in that chain is 'eating' costs that they don't have to. And next time you're there, check and see where most of your produce comes from most of the year. Usually, it's going to be 000's of miles away.

      --
      -Styopa
    55. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you buy local, you either reduce efficiency of pesticide distribution, or you don't use pesticides and reduce the yield of the planted crops. Either way, you waste limited resource (plantable land) and contribute to increased food prices and (indirectly) starvation.

    56. Re:There's still the pollution thing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      At this point, I guess all we're supposed to do is howl and screech like monkeys and occasionally throw poop at one another in a maelstrom of conflicting information.

      Welcome to Slashdot! Can I EEK EEK OOK EEK

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:There's still the pollution thing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      And if all you do is buy local...

      As if there is no cost/benefit analysis...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    58. Re: There's still the pollution thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Human quality of life would be better without so much efficiency and global trade, which doesn't raise quality of life

      Nonsense. China opened to world trade in 1980. Since then, income has increased eight-fold, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. The poorest countries in the world today are sub-Saharan African countries with near zero trade. The world's richest countries are those with the most open economies.

    59. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm reminded of generators. I bought a Yamaha generator for festivals, and it has run about 2000 hours with basic oil and other changes.

      A friend of mine bought a Chinese model with a similar watt rating, but half the price. The inverter board failed, and the maker didn't have any boards for it because they moved to a new gen generator (same model). A new board couldn't be retrofitted because there were changes to the inside physical shape so a new board couldn't fit the old area. The reseller went toes-up, and the maker pretty much said "sue us" when it came to a warranty claim.

      You get what you pay for. Said friend bought the same model I have, no problems.

      Same exact reason I avoid places like Harbor Freight. Yes, tools may be cheaper there, but my Craftsman, Park, and Snap-On sets will still be working and providing useful life far after the HF stuff winds up in the landfill or scrapyard.

      You get what you pay for.

    60. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to the library with you!

    61. Re:There's still the pollution thing by khallow · · Score: 1

      As if there is no cost/benefit analysis...

      Yes. As if there's no cost/benefit analysis.

    62. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. They're a single point of failure. Lots of companies moved freight off rail in the UK in the 90s, because the perpetual strikes were destroying their business. If a truck company goes on strike, you call their competitor. If the train company goes on strike... tough luck

      Canada had this issue, but way back in the 50s we started to legally force striking rail workers back to work. It sucks, but on the other hand, one strike could cripple our economy with ease -- we use rail for freight very heavily thanks to the sheer scale of the country, and many of our resources and farm land being quite far inland.

      However, the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that striking is a constitutionally-protected right. I don't know where things are going to go now but the prospect of another national rail strike is a bit scary.

    63. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human CO2 output is absolutely not "renewable". Considering how much of our food supply relies on petrochemicals and fertilizers.

    64. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. The costs are still immense to ship a t-shirt from China to the US. All modern transport is good for is shifting who pays by externalisation.

    65. Re:There's still the pollution thing by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Here in Oz we dig up bauxite in the north and ship millions of tons of the stuff thousands of km south to be smelted then ship it north again to be sold. Why? - A couple of decades ago the state government in the south built a new coal powered generator and port facilities specifically for the new smelter that now supplies the company with (very) cheap electricity. Why the corporate welfare in the guise of "public" infrastructure? - because "jobs".

      The mine itself is in NT, NT has more sunshine that Arizona and a high unemployment rate, the sensible thing to do would have been to build a solar generator and the smelter near the mine (and the chronically unemployed), but local politics and global economics are not interested in sensible when it costs them "jobs" or money.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    66. Re:There's still the pollution thing by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, flown goods, totally different, but as the article is on shipping containers..
      You missed - that 3.75 gallons was to move all 34000 tee shirts, so the fuel useage was 3.75/34000 - or spread it with a shovel, slice it with an axe, 1/1000th of a gallon of gas...

      Of course the local traffic issue happens no matter if the shirt is made in the USA, or anywhere else. Want to drive from the NJ Terminals to Say Long Island (shudder - NJ Turnpike, GWB and the Cross Bronx..)
      (NYC effectively has no rail service - you CAN get to Queens by shipping up north to Albany, and then down - doesn't happen) or to Staten Island...

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    67. Re:There's still the pollution thing by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Actually, an amazing number of containers go from the west coast to east coast by rail, the issue is there STILL isn't enough rail. UPS and JB Hunt gather stuff up and ship it to NJ on unit stacks

      In fact, there are a surprising number of contains (due to changes in Customs) that go from China to Europe vis the following:
      China to US west coast by ship (be it Oakland, SeaTac etc) and put right on waiting trains, which then run non stop to the US east coast, where they are offloaded from the train, right back onto a ship, and off to Europe.
      I interviewed at a place that was deeply involved in this. As I follow the shipping industry (both a railfan and ship fan) it was a gig I wish I had gotten - sigh. Anyway, they are to the point they are totally automating the cranes, and the Rail Mounted Gantries (RMG) and Rubber Tired Gantries (RTGs) in the port, with humans JUST acting as safety overrides. They want to cut the turn around on the ships from like 72 to 36 hours if I remember the numbers right. Incredibly efficient operations, and as big a deal as the invention of the cargo pallet was during WWII (Yep - think about moving stuff around without a pallet )

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    68. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except I spent 12 months on that bauxite mine (Gove, or Nhullanby as you will) and after a while you want to shoot yourself in the head. Isolated and boring doesn't begin to describe it. Oh, and the massive thunderstorms and pelting rain while it's 45C ....or 110 F or whatever. Plus dodging the tropical storms with all the roads cut for months, the microwave repeater towers in flames from lightening strikes and 5,000 dudes who do nothing but drink and fight every weekend.
      Thanks, but no thanks. Never again.

    69. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if you buy local you might end up supporting local manufacturing, creating local jobs, bolstering the local economy and generally creating an atmosphere of hope and purpose.

      That would be just awful. Better to have everything made by pseudo-slave somewhere the pollution won't directly affect you, then hide the local unemployed and disenfranchised in a suburb you don't have to visit.

    70. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay - we were told, just a few days ago, that the most important innovation was the refrigerator. Now it's a shipping container.

      Obviously it's a shipping container full of refrigerators.

      A *refrigerated* shipping container full of fridges?

    71. Re:There's still the pollution thing by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      PS: On a more positive note for the environment, it is now cheaper for India to build solar/wind farms than it is to build coal fired plants fed by imported Aussie coal. That's a GoodThing(TM) for everyone except Aussie miners and their dependent industries. India expects to connect 400 million people to electricity, sewerage, and water in the next decade, that's roughly the same number of people as the US/UK/AU/NZ combined. They are very serious about that goal since the current (popular) government was elected on a promise of "clean electricity" and "an indoor toilet in every home". Solar and wind are popular ideas with rural Indians who in general despise mining companies, IMO for good reasons in many cases.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    72. Re:There's still the pollution thing by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Nobody "invented" fire.

    73. Re:There's still the pollution thing by bbelt16ag · · Score: 2

      The Refrigerator has done more for this world in keep food from spoiling and saving people from death and illness than all the shipping containers in the world.

      --
      NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
    74. Re:There's still the pollution thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Don't know where you live, but in my neighborhood you can't get a T-shirt made for $0.01, or even $10 for 100.

      As long as there's profit to be made with transport, transport will be used. What we need is to add the externalized costs of transport to it. Cost of relocating 180 million people off the coastline? Divide that up across the cargo being shipped and that $0.01 T-shirt might start to cost more like $0.25 - possibly still worth shipping, possibly not, but we shouldn't let the cost of burning the fuel be deferred to the next generation - if we start charging for it now, we might just avert some of the problem before it happens.

    75. Re:There's still the pollution thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      when will I see a reduced workweek because of it?

      When you move to Germany or France.

    76. Re:There's still the pollution thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      But somebody probably has tried patenting "a method for inducing self sustaining combustion of combustible materials comprising a spark inducing apparatus disposed in proximity to a combustible material holding vessel."

    77. Re:There's still the pollution thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Dollars don't always tell the story, but I'm finding it cheaper, and often almost as fast, to order electronic components out of Hong Kong via Amazon as from DigiKey.

    78. Re:There's still the pollution thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Silly nerd, look at all that time you wasted trying to repair something, when you could have just gone down to the store and bought a new one. Even if you succeeded in fixing it, what were you thinking? Did you even save $10/hr of your time invested? Kids can go get a job at McD's saying "you want fries with that" and make $10/hr. /sarcasm

      I just spent $200 fixing up my driveway, $50 on tools, $150 on materials, and about 6 hours spread across 2 saturdays - the "professional" quote I got to do the same thing was $1200 - so I figure I'm getting $160+/hr return on that job, plus the kids got to help and see the results of the job they helped do every day. I also have a tree that fell and needs some chainsaw work, had the chainsaw for 12+ years now, so I figure it's cost is amoratized away, 2 hours labor, plus 2 hours getting myself clean and rested afterwards, $0.50 for the fuel and bar oil, maybe another $1 worth of chain sharpening ($5 to have someone sharpen it for you, usually get about 5 jobs like this done before it needs a sharpening.) Getting a schmo to show up with a chainsaw is usually $200+, having them do this whole job including hauling away the wood we're going to burn in our fire pit would have easily been over $500.

      I'm no fan of over-regulation, but we need some kind of "kleenex tax" that tilts the playing field in favor of building things that can be repaired. If there are two washing machines at the store and it "cost" $100 to make the throwaway variety that is expected to last 5 years and $300 to make the repairable one that is expected to need $25 in parts every 5 years and ultimately last 50+ years if properly cared for, that's $1000 cost for the first option and $550 cost for the second option. Something should be done to encourage consumers to take the second option, but, instead, we're selling ever larger disposable units and sending ever more scrap to the "recycling landfill."

    79. Re:There's still the pollution thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      We bought Speed Queens in 2006, they were lemons - especially the dryer. The repair guy came out like 6 times for separate issues. On the other hand, they were ultimately repairable, unlike some stuff that's sold today.

    80. Re:There's still the pollution thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Rails are boring, who wants to condemn real-estate via eminent domain just so you can take jobs away from "real 'murican" truck drivers?

    81. Re:There's still the pollution thing by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Ended up taking it to a local place where the Mexicanos who ran it figured out the problem and fixed the mower (In your face Donald Trump!)

      .

      The problem isn't that modern whitegoods aren't repairable, the problem is the spirit of MacGyver has left our society.

      People dont consider how to fix things. When the bulb in a lamp goes it's time to get a new lamp. You cant blame the market to reacting and catering for laziness.

      That being said, whitegoods are lasting much longer these days as well as being much cheaper. The last two things that broke on me were the fault of people (damaged whilst moving).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    82. Re: There's still the pollution thing by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Human quality of life would be better without so much efficiency and global trade, which doesn't raise quality of life

      Nonsense. China opened to world trade in 1980. Since then, income has increased eight-fold, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. The poorest countries in the world today are sub-Saharan African countries with near zero trade. The world's richest countries are those with the most open economies.

      And that's been AWESOME for their cities' air quality, hasn't it? Rich (skyscrapers & lots of busy people) does not equal quality of life.

    83. Re:There's still the pollution thing by mvdw · · Score: 1

      You get what you pay for.

      I have a saying which is pertinent here (and summarises your post quite nicely I think): "Poor man pays twice"

    84. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I'm sure they were much better off starving to death en masse.

      Oh, and the air quality problem appeared way before the 80s, and the problem has been steadily improving recently.

      You'd do well to read a book once in a while before spouting bullshit.

    85. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a mistake to believe that anonymous posters are cowards. A truly anonymous message is normally closer to a poster's true feelings that a message that's signed with a pseudonym. The reason for this is because anonymous posters don't have a reputation to uphold. Anonymous posts are judged on a basis of true merit and not upon the celebrity status of the poster - you have to judge if a post is good or bad as you don't have any prejudgement about who sent the message. People who post with pseudonyms maintain their reputations in vain and thus, they often try to post things that are agreeable to the community to maintain their reputation. A pseudonym with a poor reputation may have good ideas discarded simply because of his poor reputation and not by the sole merit of his idea. While it's certain that plenty of anonymous posts are pure shit, you can be sure that good anonymous posts are made without regard to vanity.

    86. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does daily backbreaking labor in a rice paddock with just enough money to subsist and buy various trinkets count as quality of life? Cheap energy along with affordable transportation, fast credit and instantaneous information has done wonders to lift many societies' quality of life.

    87. Re:There's still the pollution thing by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Obviously it's a shipping container full of refrigerators.

      Nope . it's a shipping container full of refrigerators using transistors for the auto cutoff cycle.

    88. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stay with older washer and dryers because the parts are easy to get and simply to fix. I had an LG front loader pair and and a few years later the axel broke due bad and cheap engineering as it turns out. You can't just repair the axel either but have to replace the entire bin or whatever it's called. That part was $500 alone, more than half the cost of the one unit. Replaced with an older washer and haven't looked back. Yes I know the older units aren't as efficient but considering how long they last, easy of finding parts and simply repairs more than makes up for it.

    89. Re:There's still the pollution thing by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Then there's weird stuff like the energy costs to run a dairy in the north of the UK being high enough that in both economic and fuel consumption terms it's less to bring the milk in from New Zealand. That's a sign of how much the ships can move.
      There are plenty of other reasons to buy local but the pollution one doesn't fit anymore.

    90. Re:There's still the pollution thing by houghi · · Score: 1

      If people would spend 50% more on TCO, the cars would already be able to last longer. Now for a t-shirt or similar, things are different.

      Will a t-shirt that is 50% more expensive last 50% more? And would that matter? People seldom wear their clothes till they are not wearable anymore.

      The same goes for other things, like phones. On average people buy a new phone every 15 months. Very seldom people drive their cars till really then end, but rather buy a new one every 3 or 4 years.

      There is a race to the bottom that is fueled by the want to have something new every X time.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    91. Re:There's still the pollution thing by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      Pollution at sea isn't a concern?????

      It's the bunker fuel that's monumentally dirty...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    92. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmh, if you are buying household washers and appliances and want something that lasts you buy Miele. Expensive? Yes. Quality? Yes.

    93. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Buying local can save a bit"

      Did you try to calculate in more money staying in the local circulation instead of leaking elsewhere? If you buy from local you don't have to support the local poor as much (and you will, more or less directly. Either give them food and shelter or get robbed, and pay for prisons, law enforcement etc.). In general you will be doing better if your neighbour is doing better. One on the reasons why strong ethnic(or otherwise selected) communities have prospered. They buy from eachothers, the same money gets everyone goodies. Fuck "getting things from where they are cheapest is best", because they never calculate in the costs associated with ruining the local economy. If I buy a chinese trinket for $100 as opposite of local $150 that $100 went to china and I get to pay $60 for feeding the local dude who is now without a job, so my total cost is $160.

    94. Re:There's still the pollution thing by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      These ships tend to use cleaner fuel within x miles of the coast, as you stated. While the fuel used in international waters is dirtier, the extra particulates are of the 'heavy' nature - meaning they don't stay airborne and sink into the ocean instead. The cost of cleaning this fuel in power, dollars, and carbon footprint, is likely higher than the averse effects it has when diluted in the oceans.

    95. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, we did have a great rail system, but it has been perverted by energy companies exporting coal and oil. The coal and oil companies have cut monopolistic deals to buy up all the capacity on many lines.

      It's a lesson in unintended consequences. In the case of the oil companies, they would much prefer to use pipelines in many situations, as they are cheaper in the long run. Unfortunately, pipeline installation has become a political football, so it's great when you have access to lines put down decades ago (when nobody cared), but putting new lines results in a legal clusterfuck. And fracking fields often aren't located in the places the old lines went.

    96. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spokane is where BNSF does its reefer car repairs.

      Are those for goods shipments from Columbia?

      They hump freight cars in Seattle and Pasco.

      Hump? Hemp?

    97. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      I've observed this myself with my Washer and Dryer set. When I bought them I wasn't quite broke but I definitely couldn't afford to spend a lot on them. So I bought a pretty generic no frills Whirlpool set for under $500. That was over a decade ago now. I've had to disassemble and repair each machine once in the last year or two. Both times though I was able to figure out the problem pretty quickly and easily. Ordering the parts was a little sketchy, with one shop losing my order for a couple weeks. But in both cases the cost to fix them was under $60. Most of my friends and family that have spent $1k or more on washer dryer sets have ended up with more frequent and expensive breakdowns. My parents for instance have a very pricey washing machine which they've had for five years. So far that thing has required two repairs, one of which was a processor chip of some sort that cost more than my washing machine.

    98. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      My Tundra was built in Texas, does that count as a factory?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    99. Re:There's still the pollution thing by b0bby · · Score: 1

      If people would spend 50% more on TCO, the cars would already be able to last longer.

      The problem with making cars last longer (and they already are pretty good) is that most of the ways you could do it would add weight so they would be less efficient over their longer lifetime.

    100. Re:There's still the pollution thing by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'd absolutely agree. The shipping container has done a lot but food preservation has done more. The transistor and microcomputer (by which I do not mean your tablet but if you're here I suspect you know what I speak of) have done a great deal too. I'm not sure how I'd quantify either of those.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    101. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

      When you say the repair was "under $60", you missed the $70/hour thing going rate for appliance repair labor.

      And if you are smart enough to understand and repair a washer "easily" then there are tons of more valuable things we could be paying you to do.

    102. Re:There's still the pollution thing by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      True, people interested in fixing things, or re purposing them are a minority. Truly they've always been, but economics allowed them to make a living doing the fixing and repurposing for others as well as themselves.
      That's no longer the case.

    103. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      This is why it baffles the mind that the Democrats are against the Keystone XL pipeline. The oil will move either way, so it is a choice between a pipeline, or rail line. The pipeline is more efficient, and less likely to spill oil.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    104. Re: There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a non-sequitur. I agree that the air quality is especially poor in China, but that is not a direct consequence of trade. There are many examples of countries with open economies and lots of trade, but have good air quality. In the case of China, the poor air quality is tied to their high use of fossil fuels without anything that helps clean/scrub the exhaust

    105. Re:There's still the pollution thing by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      But quite possibly no less cost, time, energy or carbon.

      It can take more energy/cost/etc to ship something inefficiently within your local state/county/etc than to get it shipped efficiently from China.

      Rgds

      Damon

      Buying little cheap electronics stuff from ebay it amazes me that they can mail me something for $3 and get it here in 3 days, better than domestic mail.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    106. Re:There's still the pollution thing by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Correct. People don't realize how fuel EFFICIENT shipping really is. At "Slow" speeds (18 knots) where more than 1/2 the worlds cargo ships run, and figuring a 9000-10000 TEU ship (aka holds 9000-10000 20 ft containers, 1/2 that if all 40Ft boxes) - the ship will typically burn 100 Tons of fuel/day - or 1/100th of a ton of fuel per container/day, and roughly (because bunker C - the 'crap they burn' - Now there are roughly depending on exact fuel 250-280 gallons/ton of fuel - so it takes about 1/4 gallon of fuel per DAY to move each one of those containers. But the joke? Go to the online shipping calculators - China to west coast USA (where it will get put on a train) - 15 days, NOT 15. So you are talking roughly 3.75 gallons of fuel to move that container of tee-shirts from China to the US - that's the container, all the goods etc. Work the math. You probably burn more fuel per shirt driving to the store, picking up the shirt, and driving home than shipping it from China takes. Remember - ships float, and take surprisingly little fuel per ton to move freight. It is why canals were such a big deal back when - a full barge of coal or gravel or whatever could be moved by ONE horse.

      still waiting for the super efficient hydrofoil container ships from the cover of Popular Science circa 1964.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    107. Re:There's still the pollution thing by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      So, while in theory the cost of these appliances and the world efficiency is improved with the model of cheap parts&labor from China. The reality is a lot of wasted time, shipping wrong replacement parts, and giving up and tossing out the old piece-o-crap to a landfill and buying something new.

      That conclusion is dependant on the value of your time (or a hired appliance repair dude @ $70/hr) looking up and understanding the schematic, deducing the cause of the failure, figuring out which part or parts need to be replaced and then doing the repair, adjusted for the probability of making a mistake anywhere in the process. Compare that with the number of engineer-hours required to design the thing, maintain the production lines and run the distribution apparatus (all of it) divided into the number of units produced. You might find that you just spent more time repairing your unit than was (amortized) spent on the entire rest of its lifetime ...

      I guess another way of saying this is that every good has an optimal level of reliability -- beyond which it costs less to regularly replace the failing units than to improve the process or to provide for repairs. We could probably build a washer (or a car, or a hard drive) that lasts longer than the ones we have today, but what would the point be if the TCO was actually higher? Unless you were running the Presidential Motorcade or going all Mad Max, would you buy a car that failed half as often if the TCO was $300/mo instead of $200/mo (and that's including cost of repairs plus your time and inconvenience to bring it to the shop already priced in)? Would Amazon buy more reliable hard drives for AWS (if they were on the market) or would they just buy the cheap ones and build in redundancy? Does my small business website need 99.99% uptime or is 99.9% sufficient? Will the business I lose in the 40 minutes per month difference make up the cost? We can always throw more money at any good/process to make it more reliable -- but there has to be some stopping point where we decide that the marginal gains no longer make sense.

      Another aspect to keep in mind is that doing things more reliably at global-scale means paying attention to all those nines. Just like getting from 99.9% uptime to 99.99% is going to cost more than each previous SLA, so to is the calculation for every input to the washer, plus the process/machinery that assembles it, plus the process/machinery that tests it. The acceptable marginal failure rate is going to scale against the marginal cost for increasing reliability.

      [ And interestingly enough, Speed Queen does specialize in super-simple super-reliable washers and dryers, largely for the commercial (coin-op) market where downtime is more expensive. If it means a lot to you for your washer, by all means pay more for one and rest easier. Last I checked, they were more than 3x the upfront cost though, meaning that even if your other washer breaks twice out of warranty and is totally unrepairable and you have to buy a new one, you're still ahead! ]

      just an article in the paper today about "air force one", or the two 747-200s that play that role; they don't even manufacture spare parts for them anymore, and so any replacements have to be machined by hand; and even at that refined level of exclusivity, they're at the point where it's going to be cheaper just to buy new ones and scrap the old.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    108. Re:There's still the pollution thing by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The old world is still available but unfortunately most people are not interested in participating. A nice Miele washing machine can be repaired by any mechanic. My Fema coffee grinder looks like it is about 100 years old and yet I can still buy each part individually, and a modern Honda lawn mower has every bit the service and warranty you expect from a quality Japanese product (not that you need to rely on that with such a nicely made engine). If you pay real money for quality gear then repairs are still possible. My neighbour has no problem finding replacement bits for his chainsaw after 20 years, but I couldn't find the shitty replacement tensioner for my cheap electric no-name brand only 3 years after I bought it.

      There are of course exceptions to the rule. Even expensive TVs have no user serviceable parts, and if you buy a cheap Dell you're more likely to be able to replace a component then an expensive Surface.

      as somebody once said about why it's easier to repair old cars; "they're just a bunch fo car parts put together". The basic principle applies to all goods; the more they're just a bunch of parts put together, the easier it is to diagnose and fix; the more things are constrained by needing to be compatible with 27 other systems in terms of size, performance, weight, interface, etc. the harder it becomes.
      of course, in electronics you just get to the point where everything is on one chip which is one board with a few support chips to supply power, etc; the chip is completely unfixable, obviously, the board might be fixable if the defect is obvious like a broken trace, but mainly you just swap the whole board.
      or you take the board out and put it into a pencil case and take it to school to show your teacher.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    109. Re:There's still the pollution thing by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You get what you pay for.

      I have a saying which is pertinent here (and summarises your post quite nicely I think): "Poor man pays twice"

      which brings up the positive feedbacks that keep poor people poor; they don't have the bucks up front to buy something lasting, so they are locked into a cycle of buy cheap, and buy another one next year, keeping them from saving up to buy the reliable one in the first place.
      same as why they can't replace every light bulb in their house with LED even though it would pay for itself; or insulate the house even though it would pay for itself; or even scrape up the down payment to buy a house instead of renting.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    110. Re:There's still the pollution thing by lgw · · Score: 1

      And so what? Pollution is only a problem when the local concentration is high enough to do some harm. If there's only 1 engine within 30 miles in any direction, it can be quite dirty and yet the emissions still be dilute enough not to matter (especially if it's moving continuously).

      About 1/3rd of the air pollution in San Francisco was emitted in China. That' a real problem. About 0% of the air pollution in San Francisco was emitted by ships moving to and from China. That's not a problem.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    111. Re:There's still the pollution thing by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Ended up taking it to a local place where the Mexicanos who ran it figured out the problem and fixed the mower (In your face Donald Trump!) .

      The problem isn't that modern whitegoods aren't repairable, the problem is the spirit of MacGyver has left our society.. People dont consider how to fix things. When the bulb in a lamp goes it's time to get a new lamp. You cant blame the market to reacting and catering for laziness. That being said, whitegoods are lasting much longer these days as well as being much cheaper. The last two things that broke on me were the fault of people (damaged whilst moving).

      i remember meeting people when I was a kid, from the beaten down lower echelons of society, to whom replacing a headlight bulb in a car was literally unthinkable. when the headlight burned out, then the car was just a one headlight car from then on, like if it were a person whose eye got poked out.
      some people don't know how to fix things or get them fixed, some people don't bother to fix things, and some people really just do not grasp that they have enough control over their environment to fix the occasional item. that's why they're in the beaten down lower echelons of society.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    112. Re: There's still the pollution thing by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Human quality of life would be better without so much efficiency and global trade, which doesn't raise quality of life

      Nonsense. China opened to world trade in 1980. Since then, income has increased eight-fold, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. The poorest countries in the world today are sub-Saharan African countries with near zero trade. The world's richest countries are those with the most open economies.

      there's poverty, then there's poverty. (profound, right?) it's one thing to be on the cusp of starvation all the time, but another to be self sustaining with a subsistence farm, although both are poor.
      are first world residents that much happier? the point being happiness, rather than just richer and with more stuff? i think once you get past antibiotics and modern sanitation, to the point where there's a good chance your kids will outlive you rather than the other way around, you're getting into the region of diminishing returns. witness the stereotypical worker in finance or law or something with a huge income but no leisure time or life outside work.
      of course, as Bernie tells us, in Denmark they strike a balance, where you get both a safety net (if your subsistence farm fails due to AGW) and enough benefits to enjoy life, but they still manage to have the same productivity per hour worked as the US.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    113. Re: There's still the pollution thing by gzuckier · · Score: 2

      Human quality of life would be better without so much efficiency and global trade, which doesn't raise quality of life

      Nonsense. China opened to world trade in 1980. Since then, income has increased eight-fold, and hundreds of millions have been lifted out of poverty. The poorest countries in the world today are sub-Saharan African countries with near zero trade. The world's richest countries are those with the most open economies.

      And that's been AWESOME for their cities' air quality, hasn't it? Rich (skyscrapers & lots of busy people) does not equal quality of life.

      rich guy, speaking from one of his country houses: "Don't be silly you socialist. air pollution and living in a human anthill are the price we pay for this terrific life we lead"

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    114. Re:There's still the pollution thing by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Also common was to slide it behind the kitchen stove.

    115. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Have you ever taken apart a bare bones washer or dryer? The most difficult part of the entire procedure is getting the cabinet open. For the washer it was the pump that was leaking. There were two bolts holding it in place and two pipe clamps to release. My wife actually applied a temporary fix using a hot glue gun while we waited for the part to be delivered, which held for several weeks. Paying someone to repair a washer like that is the equivalent of taking your desktop computer into the PC shop to replace a seized case fan.

      The dryer was actually easier to work on as the back opened up. The problem was obvious enough as it was blowing unheated air. So I checked the Ohms on the heating coil and determined it had burned out. Again replacing it was as easy as removing a few screws and plugging in the new part.

      Anyways my whole point was that by purchasing a less expensive set of machines I saved money in pretty much every way possible. They were cheaper to purchase upfront, cheaper to maintain and repair, and thus far lasted longer than the more expensive options. The only way they aren't cheaper is in operating costs, and while those values get touted a lot in advertising the actual numbers will vary with the cost of your utilities.

      $70 an hour isn't what that kind of expertise or intelligence costs. That amount is covering all kinds of other business expenses and probably not coming in 40+ hours a week. Regardless you can be sure that the repair guy himself isn't getting that kind of pay.

    116. Re:There's still the pollution thing by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      they are to the point they are totally automating the cranes, and the Rail Mounted Gantries (RMG) and Rubber Tired Gantries (RTGs) in the port, with humans JUST acting as safety overrides.

      That's an interesting juxtaposition with the movie "On The Waterfront" .

    117. Re: There's still the pollution thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      in Denmark they strike a balance

      Denmark has a far more open economy than even America. Their merchandise trade was 60% of GDP. America's was about 20%.

      Using Denmark as an example of a closed economy producing a better quality of life is idiotic in the extreme.

    118. Re:There's still the pollution thing by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of factories in the west. It's just the old ones near the big cities that closed. The cities priced themselves out of business!

    119. Re:There's still the pollution thing by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Recently I met a young very distresssed couple who's battery had gone flat in their car. They were really really upset and had no idea what to do. The car was a manual and had a clear run down a very nice hill to clutch start it. I told them of this and the male said what's that mean.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    120. Re:There's still the pollution thing by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Yes, totally. That's why the box changed the world. Break bulk, even on pallets was a bear to unload, and a ship would be in port a LONG time, and the ships were relatively small. Today, the 10000 TEU sip I quoted at 100 tons fuel/day is actually small. You are seeing ships up at 18000 TEU and 125 tons/day. These ship are the reason the Panama canal is being rebuilt, NY Harbor has been dredged deeper, the Bayone bridge in NJ is being raised (to get to the slips in NJ)
      One of the real ISSUES they don't bring up, with the trade imbalance, many more containers come INTO the US than go out. What do you do with the empties? In general, what happens is the best are reused to ship stuff out, Some are sold (there are a reason you see the ads for buying containers) and the rest? Cut up for scrap, and shipped back to China as scrap steel!
      BTW - this is the place I had applied and didn't get the gig back, oh 3-4 years ago - read about the automation
      http://www.nj.com/business/ind...

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    121. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are off by a factor of 10. It isn't a 1/4 gallon per day per container, but it is 2.5 to 2.8 gallons per container/day. So, it would be 37.5-42 gallons for each container.

      To be honest, I would have guessed 375-420 gallons though.

    122. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right not to be enslaved is more important than your precious "economy".

      Better to ask why you're inadequately compensating people upon whose labo(u)r the whole country's economy lies, eh?

    123. Re:There's still the pollution thing by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Dude! You reasoned back from (a) the lack of heat, (b) the knowledge that an electric dryer uses resistive heating, (c) how to operate a multimeter and (d) what an ohm is. And you did all this without an SOP or flow-chart style troubleshooting guide.

      That puts you well ahead of 90% of the button-mashers that use a dryer. Maybe even 95%.

      [ And yeah, the $70/hr covers lots of incidentals plus downtime waiting for jobs ]

  2. A great book by davebarnes · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger
    by Marc Levinson

    A really good read

    --
    Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
    1. Re:A great book by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      I read it earlier this year and it's a lot better than what you would expect considering the subject. As you go through it you can see how seemingly small decisions made half a century ago are still influencing how we design our infrastructure today (trucks vs. trains).

  3. And we havent even talked about docker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Its changing the world

    1. Re:And we havent even talked about docker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its changing the world

      Ha! Ha!

      Yes, light-weight Docker containers are increasingly deployed instead of heavy-weight virtual machines. I have transitioned to containers from virtual machines to provide the application environment required for courses that I am currently studying.

  4. BS by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter anymore where you produce something now, because transport costs aren't important.

    The is utter bullshit. The cost of shipping is decidedly important if you're trying to move goods from China to the US, unless the goods have an enormous cost per unit volume. In the case of the t-shirts, the shipping was probably most of the 1 cent.

    The next time we do a big import for our distribution business, we'll try telling the shippers that we don't need to pay them and we'll see how far that gets us.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:BS by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Informative

      They meant the cost to transport the shirt was one cent. Not the unit cost of the shirt, of course.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter anymore where you produce something now, because transport costs aren't important.

      The is utter bullshit. The cost of shipping is decidedly important if you're trying to move goods from China to the US, unless the goods have an enormous cost per unit volume. In the case of the t-shirts, the shipping was probably most of the 1 cent.

      The next time we do a big import for our distribution business, we'll try telling the shippers that we don't need to pay them and we'll see how far that gets us.

      The way I read the GP is tat the cost of shipping per T-shirt was 1 cent, not that the cost of the T-shirt is 1 cent. I don't know the prices of T-shirts in your locale, but here that would be an insignificant part of the cost.

    3. Re:BS by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Yes.

      Cotton routinely trades at around 65-80 (US) cents per pound, and depending on size, you can turn a pound into 2 to 2-1/2 t-shirts.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think they were saying that "less than one US cent" was the shipping cost. The cost of producing the shirt was probably closer to a buck or so. I don't think the one cent estimate is accurate. I suspect it is only counting the cost of transport once the item is in the container, and up to the point that it will be leaving the container. There is a lot of sorting, packing, and unpacking, that goes into making the container system work.

      The real problem with this system is that it fosters bulk production with little variation. If I want a product that doesn't match well with the majority of consumers, I just can't get it. Part of that problem is the month long delay between ordering and reviewing. Many products go through a series of revisions before they are much good.

    5. Re:BS by fnj · · Score: 2

      I don't want to call you stupid, but are you drunk or something? The assertion is that it costs one cent to ship a T-shirt across the world. A shirt you pay at least five bucks for in the store. You can bet ylour ass that shirt costs more than one cent to manufacture, even in China. That means that manufacturing it 20,000 km away as compared to 1 km away only has a penalty of 0.2% of the retail price, and still a small fraction of the manufacturing cost. Goddam right the bulk trunk transportation costs are negligible.

      It costs you more to ship that T-shirt 1 km locally in small lots than it does to trunk it in bulk all the way across the world.

      No wonder I can buy 100 capacitors direct from from China for a buck and have them shipped free all the way to my door. That's about as far from "enormous cost per unit volume" as you can get.

    6. Re:BS by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      For T-shirts yes. $15 for a small bit of fabric. But for most products if you want to import a full shipping container, have it filled at the source, shipped to the dock, shipped on a ship, have a paid shipping person help it through customs (where a lot of corruption and back handing happens in US ports) have it trucked to you business and unloaded, The shipping will cost thousands of dollars.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    7. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      40 tonne container = 500,000 T-shirts. Cost of leasing a container for shipping = $5000/tonne . Unit cost per T-shirt = 5000 / 500000 = 1 cent

      The biggest increase in the cost of anything from abroad is the import duty, which can be as much as 30%.

    8. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I live in Australia and it still costs me $50 to $100 to ship anything retail that isn't flat or a letter from US to Europe.

  5. You don't sew shirts in a factory near Beijng by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cost will be prohibitive. You make shirts in some southern China shithole where there are lots of unskilled workers and sweatshops.

    1. Re:You don't sew shirts in a factory near Beijng by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You make shirts in some southern China shithole where there are lots of unskilled workers and sweatshops.

      Most textile manufacturing is done in Vietnam and Bangladesh. Labor costs are too high anywhere in China. A factory worker in Shenzhen is going to cost over $2/hr. Even in inland cities like Chongqing and Chengdu, labor costs are over $1/hr.

  6. Not just goods by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 2

    It can also be used to transport people, often with fatal results. Or you can go eco and turn it into a modular pre-fab house.

  7. Pointless analogy by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Think of the shipping container as the Internet of thing," says Curry. "Just as your email is disassembled into discrete bundles of data the minute you hit send, then re-assembled in your recipient's inbox later, the uniform, ubiquitous boxes are designed to be interchangeable, their contents irrelevant."

    This analogy is poorly constructed. Analogies are needed when an abstract concept with no tangible component needs to be explained by substituting a tangible form in place of an abstract form. Packing shipping containers, even with disparate contents that are later 'broken down' to go to individual recipients, is a tangible concept that does not need to use an abstract concept like data into packets into frames into bits back into frames back into bits back into frames back into packets (etc) to explain.

    It doesn't even need something abstract to explain how the form factors of shipping containers impact goods, as one can simply state that due to standardization in three or four common shipping container sizes dictates the size and packing of goods that get packed into such containers, which in-turn dictate the dimensions of pallets on which goods may be placed, the size of railcars on which containers may ride, and even the size of tunnels for rail cars and the shapes of loading docks at distribution facilities.

    One can even talk about the downsides (like how the form factors were somewhat arbitrary and work equally well and poorly for both fractional and SI units) and how there's real concern for the wastes associated with moving the mass the mass of the container itself. Again, no analogy needed.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Pointless analogy by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It seems more like multicast than email so maybe it would be like email to a mailing list... *nods*

      Either way, a point - you have one. That was probably the worst analogy I've seen in a summary in a long time. I mean, you know, we're on Slashdot - most of us actually understand the idea of shipping if not truly comprehend it from the BILLION AND THREE documentaries we've seen about it. We don't *really* need an analogy.

      *sighs*

      Maybe they're aiming for a lowbrow crowd in hopes of attracting more users and finally moving on that sale they claimed they were going to have. God forbid if they shut us down and we're unleashed on the internet as a whole group - lost, lonely, and pissed off. Maybe the government will step in, just to keep us all in one spot - too big to fail, national icon, etc...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:Pointless analogy by ottawanker · · Score: 2

      Speaking of which, I thought it was the pallet that changed everything..

      Pallets: The Single Most Important Object in the Global Economy

    3. Re:Pointless analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people in Sweden would ship a new car home by dismantling the vehicle and send the parts home in crates, simply because there was tax duty on a imported vehicle and not individual spare parts.

      People have done the same with desktop PC's. Though the only obstacle is having a case that could be fully disassembled, especially since it is mostly empty space without any components inside. If it were possible, you could probably reduce the packing box down to the size of a monitor box.

    4. Re:Pointless analogy by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Maybe the government will step in, just to keep us all in one spot - too dangerous to let out of slashdot.

      FTFY.

    5. Re:Pointless analogy by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Containers are like packets in many ways, in theory they can be any size but if you want to get them through a gateway in practice they need to be a specific size. They have labels on them describing their contents which are often lies. They sometimes fall off the boat and get lost...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Pointless analogy by TWX · · Score: 1

      The United States has or had a tax on completed light trucks imported from Japan. The solution for the Isuzu Trooper in the eighties and early nineties was to basically leave the rear seat out such that "final assembly" was completed at the dealership. I don't know how extensive the final assembly step was over standard new-car prep (where they're supposed to basically verify that the factory torqued key fasteners down etc) but I imagine that they shipped the rear seat assembly and other parts necessary for final assembly inside of the vehicle itself, since it has a fairly voluminous interior when that rear seat isn't bolted-down and configured for passenger use.

      Depending on importation laws it might well be possible to partially disassemble a car, pack all of that car's parts into the interior and trunk of the car, and then ship the rolling, packed car as parts to its destination where reassembly would take place. I don't see any reason why someone couldn't do that with computers too, depending on the law- pack all the parts inside of the case then pack the case in a box and ship all of it. I guess that the biggest question is whether the economics of the labor to do any disassembly and packing are less expensive than the import tax- for an expensive assembly like that Isuzu, that already will be essentially thoroughly checked for safety/finish on delivery, bolting-in the seats and bolting-on the spare tire doesn't really cost anything more than normal prep would anyway, especially if all of the parts come from the same factory. For a computer where the parts may come from different factories or for a used car that has to have labor expended to disassemble before packing and later reassembling it might not make as much sense, depending on the costs.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Pointless analogy by TWX · · Score: 2

      I don't know how one could judge the human-scale pallet against the machine-scale shipping container. Both revolutionized their particular aspect of shipping and storage, and they're definitely intermingled. I've watched an idiot that was too stupid to go to the warehousing and materiel department to get spare pallets and stretchwrap force a crew of eight to manually pack hundreds of old computer cases into a shipping container for storage, only to have to unload the cases when the container had to be moved, and then repack them again manually. Had he had half a brain he would have gotten about 20 pallets, had the computer cases stacked and wrapped (and inventoried on each pallet with packing slip under the outermost layer of stretchwrap, but that's another story) and and then one or two guys in the course of an afternoon could have packed and unpacked that container with nothing more than an unpowered pallet jack.

      It's true that there might have been some loss of useful volume in using pallets, as there needs to be enough space around the wrapped contents to let them pass each other inside, but the ultimate fate of these computer cases was to be scrapped. It would have been easier at all levels had he simply used pallets, as even the container probably could have been moved while full as the wrapped pallets wouldn't have shifted as much as individually stacked cases would have.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    8. Re:Pointless analogy by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      The container revolution is the next step in the pallet revolution. A friend of mine Master's paper is on the pallet. Interesting topic (single use vs reusable vs pool pallets - the 'Blue' painted ones you see are rented

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    9. Re:Pointless analogy by mvdw · · Score: 2

      The United States has or had a tax on completed light trucks imported from Japan. The solution for the Isuzu Trooper in the eighties and early nineties was to basically leave the rear seat out such that "final assembly" was completed at the dealership. I don't know how extensive the final assembly step was over standard new-car prep (where they're supposed to basically verify that the factory torqued key fasteners down etc) but I imagine that they shipped the rear seat assembly and other parts necessary for final assembly inside of the vehicle itself, since it has a fairly voluminous interior when that rear seat isn't bolted-down and configured for passenger use.

      Almost right; From wikipedia: "From 1978–1987 the Subaru BRAT carried two rear-facing seats (with seatbelts and carpeting) in its rear bed to meet classification as a "passenger vehicle" and not a light truck." This was in direct respons to a so-called "Chicken tax" from the early '60s. Look up Chicken Tax on wikipedia - it's an interesting read how a tax intended to protect a certain market had ramifications for a completely different industry for many decades to come.

  8. Cost of fork-lift driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember talking to an Aussie wine maker years ago.
    He claimed that 90% of his shipping cost was paying a fork-lift driver to load the container.
    As Californian fork-lift drivers were payed more than Australian ones,
    he had a competitive advantage in East Coast markets vs. Californian producers.

    Since then the "U-Haul trailer effect"* has distorted the picture somewhat.

    * [You can measure the state of the TX vs. the CA economy by comparing the price of one way trailer rentals between CA & TX.
        In effect, U-Haul could pay you to transport a trailer from TX to CA and still make a profit renting the trailer to an economic refugee fleeing from CA to TX.]

    1. Re:Cost of fork-lift driver by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      California's population is still rising pretty quickly. Quick googling says, 4.5% over the last 4 years.

      And CA's economy is stronger than Texas, but the cost of living is much higher...a disproportionate number of people who leave CA are retired or not doing very well in their careers, and not capable of paying for CA's higher ("ridiculously higher" is probably more accurate) housing costs.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Cost of fork-lift driver by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I used to be in the Bay Area, but not anymore. I recently got a call from a Google recruiter.

      Recruiter: "I'd like to talk with you about a role at Google."
      Me: "Is this for a job in the Bay Area?"
      Recruiter: "Yes, it is."
      Me: "Thanks for your interest, buy Google won't pay me enough to be able to afford to live there, like I can live in XXXX."

    3. Re:Cost of fork-lift driver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but but Bay Area where unicorns poop rainbows and other magic.

      Wonderful place to live for sure if you are top tier tech talent and less than say 35 (and that is being generous). Unless you move up to management (or actually earn real money off an IPO) things can get ugly quick when you age. On the bright side if you could afford a house it is probably worth more than you paid, so there's that.

      Not saying the Valley isn't amazing, but there are tons of nice places to live that have a strong tech market that pays well if you have valuable skills.

  9. TX vs CA by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    That's actually opposite of what it was just a couple of decades ago. It cost me 3-4x as much to move east to west (east coast to CA) as to move back to the east coast. People are still flocking to CA.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:TX vs CA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your evidence in rebuttal to the assertion that people are currently fleeing from California (a west coast state) to Texas is a counter assertion that people are still flocking to California based on a decades old observation of your own travels from a place not less than 400 miles from anywhere in Texas?

  10. Like much innovation, it was resisted by John+Jorsett · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm old enough to remember when containerization was just beginning to ramp up. The stevedores (the guys who manually shifted the goods from ship to shore and vice versa) were really upset because it would reduce the number of jobs (their contracts typically let them set the number of men on each job. Nice deal, that) and make their pilfering from the cargo much tougher. Somebody estimated that 5% or so of consumer goods never made it to the destination. There were violent strikes and sabotage of the port facilities during that time. Goes to show that when you kick over somebody's rice bowl, no matter how much better you might be making things, you're going to get pushback. A lesson that still applies, these days for the Uber economy.

    1. Re:Like much innovation, it was resisted by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There were violent strikes and sabotage of the port facilities during that time. Goes to show that when you kick over somebody's rice bowl, no matter how much better you might be making things, you're going to get pushback. A lesson that still applies, these days for the Uber economy.

      It's funny, because I think you overlook the odd commonalities between the old-fashioned stevedore model and the Uber model.

      Both of them are based on an idea that having a steady job with consistent employees is unnecessary. It's obviously cheaper to hire people on demand.

      The traditional model for stevedores were guys who'd show up at the docks every morning and just HOPE they might get enough work that day to get paid and go home and feed their families. That just depended on whether the shipping schedules and amount of goods happened to be enough to support them.

      The life of a lot of these guys was terrible -- they worked hard, when they could, but they had no job security at all... since they had no "job," per se. If they had an unlucky accident and hurt their backs or whatever, they could be out on the street begging.

      Then, at some point, through strikes workers' rights movements, the stevedores finally achieved REAL jobs.

      Ironically, the "Uber economy" you favor is heading toward putting its "contract workers" (people who struggle to cobble together enough part-time work to live) back in the same place that the stevedores were before unions... standing on the docks, hoping that enough ships come in today to feed the family.

      (P.S. I'm not arguing in favor of corrupt unions, nor am I celebrating destructive stevedore protests. But I think we need to realize why those stevedores were so upset to lose their jobs... those were hard-won concessions that they fought to get out of an "Uber economy" model, because it made their lives miserable.)

    2. Re:Like much innovation, it was resisted by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression the taxi system was primarily created to improve customer service because without limits there's be many serving the "sweet spots" both in terms of hours and locations while the rest would be under-served. By making medallions that hold a rather big capital investment it's necessary to keep the taxi on the road as much as possible, even through the slow hours, because even though they're not as profitable it's better than leaving them unused. Not unlike how the postal service will deliver some items to small, remote locations at unprofitable prices at the same flat rates as relatively simple and cheap deliveries. If you let some companies or individuals take just the best bits, that kind of model won't work.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Like much innovation, it was resisted by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ironically, the "Uber economy" you favor is heading toward putting its "contract workers" (people who struggle to cobble together enough part-time work to live) back in the same place that the stevedores were before unions... standing on the docks, hoping that enough ships come in today to feed the family.

      Taxi drivers are already there.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Like much innovation, it was resisted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding was that there was actual Mafia involvement in, and interference with, shipping. Pilfering losses were substantial back in the old days. I'm not comfortable associating that with stevedores because that tends to paint everyone with the sins of the crooks.

      Nevertheless containers didn't merely make shipping cheaper through standardization and efficiency. They also made shipping more reliable and far less vulnerable to theft which have secondary effects of lowering costs.

  11. The box that built the modern world is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the shipping container.
    It's the REFRIGERATOR...by far the most disruptive modern technology. Not to say that the shipping container isn't very significant and postdates the fridge by many decades. How modern is MODERN?

  12. The next step by sjames · · Score: 1

    The next logical step should make the outsourcer's blood run cold. That is, individuals gain access to the cheap container shipping.

    What do they plan to do when a typical consumer figures out how to go direct and get a new wardrobe for $20? Right nbow, you can order from China but the shipping costs more than the goods you have shipped. That's the real reason U.S. corporations are going crazy over trademarks and clones. They know the day is coming when we can get the same thing they're selling for pennies on the dollar. Right now they're in an elaborate scheme that boils down to rent (in the economic sense, not leasing though they do that too).

    1. Re:The next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right nbow, you can order from China but the shipping costs more than the goods you have shipped.

      No, you can get lots of stuff from China on ebay with free shipping.

    2. Re:The next step by KGIII · · Score: 2

      I dunno, I've ordered lots of stuff on a slow boat from China and I'm kind of thinking it cost them more to ship it to me than I paid? I mean, a few dollars - total, with free shipping, for a pretty bulky package. When I get stuff shipped to me, I'm all the way over in Maine and that stuff is coming in on the West Coast. I really don't know how much they pay for shipping but it'd have to be dirt cheap. It usually takes about six weeks to get to me, sometimes longer, but it's almost always free shipping and dirt cheap prices. I'm pretty sure they're losing money or something - if not they're not making a whole lot of money.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re:The next step by sjames · · Score: 1

      You mean with the shipping charge built in. Still a decent deal often enough.

    4. Re:The next step by sjames · · Score: 2

      I suspect they probably aren't losing money, that would be kind of silly, though they may not be making much.

      Now, just imagine how cheaply the major dealers in the U.S. are getting them when they buy thousands at a time. Then look at what they are selling them for.

    5. Re:The next step by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You mean with the shipping charge built in. Still a decent deal often enough.

      A lot of this stuff is like a dollar, though. If you're getting ten terminal strips for a buck and it has to get shipped... how is anyone making anything on that?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:The next step by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      The next logical step should make the outsourcer's blood run cold. That is, individuals gain access to the cheap container shipping.

      That's a business in theory, but the problem is, you've got to have some way to get your pallets delivered. You can only get them sent to a freight depot cheaply.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:The next step by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'd assume that too but they're often heavy packages. Stuff that simply costs more to ship USPS, for example. They've generally got the strange 'stamp' looking thing on them and no indication of US Postage on some of them. I have no idea how they get to my mail box for that price. They must have some sort of pre-sort deal or whatnot.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:The next step by sjames · · Score: 1

      Good question, but it seems unlikely that the seller is in it to lose money.

    9. Re:The next step by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes. That's why it hasn't already happened.

    10. Re:The next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can already do that in Alibaba/ALiexpress. Ship entire pallets of stuff direct from China.

    11. Re:The next step by sjames · · Score: 1

      Now it's just a matter of sub-dividing and delivering.

    12. Re:The next step by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Your terminal strips go into the same container as thousands of other orders. Shipping for something that small and light is going to be almost free until it gets routed from the regional postal distribution center.

    13. Re:The next step by sjames · · Score: 1

      I really don't know how they manage it. The things I've bought haven't been very heavy, but they arrived within a week or so mailed China Post to USPS.

      The last was an Arduino Pro-mini clone for $2 postage and all.

    14. Re:The next step by mvdw · · Score: 1

      Now it's just a matter of sub-dividing and delivering.

      You mean like what pretty much every importer already does? To be fair though, clearly it's a workable business model because there's plenty of example in the wild.

    15. Re:The next step by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the missing piece is where the costs come from.

    16. Re:The next step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chine is subventing their postal services to boost local manufacturing and sales. They are basically paying for shipping out of pocket to move all manufacturing and sales to china. Trade war of kinds. Enjoy it while it lasts. Also, postal services have agreements to deliver things coming in from other countries, so ultimately your local postal service will need more money from governenment, negotiate the deal again, or somehow internally subvent the deliveries coming in from china.

    17. Re:The next step by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think the most confusing was a box of rare earth magnets that I ordered. They were about a pound and I paid a whole dollar with shipping and handling. The AC above (below) your reply has some interesting info that kind of suggests what I was thinking might be true.

      And no, no I didn't have a good reason for ordering rare earth magnets. But, hey! A dollar with free shipping? I'll find a use. I keep a few stuck on my fridge back home and invite people to try to pull them off the fridge by pulling them straight off and not sliding them off to the side. I am easily amused.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:The next step by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      You mean with the shipping charge built in. Still a decent deal often enough.

      A lot of this stuff is like a dollar, though. If you're getting ten terminal strips for a buck and it has to get shipped... how is anyone making anything on that?

      a few years back, i noticed that all the paper clips in the store were made in China, no matter what brand, and all the staples were made domestically, no matter what brand (or maybe the other way around, I don't remember). Anyway, I could not figure how the difference in manufacturing and shipping costs between those two items could possibly cause that to be the case.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    19. Re:The next step by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The next logical step should make the outsourcer's blood run cold. That is, individuals gain access to the cheap container shipping.

      What do they plan to do when a typical consumer figures out how to go direct and get a new wardrobe for $20? Right nbow, you can order from China but the shipping costs more than the goods you have shipped. That's the real reason U.S. corporations are going crazy over trademarks and clones. They know the day is coming when we can get the same thing they're selling for pennies on the dollar. Right now they're in an elaborate scheme that boils down to rent (in the economic sense, not leasing though they do that too).

      the ultimate end game, as various SF authors have grasped, is that information is a lot cheaper to ship than stuff, so at some point you'll just 3d print or whatever everything yourself from the plans you buy over the net. there will be lots of attempts at copy protection or whatever but in the end the same thing will happen that happened to the music biz. then God knows what the economy will look like. the o[nly industries will be building 3d printers or cnc machining or whatever or making the raw materials for them.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    20. Re:The next step by sjames · · Score: 1

      It does make sense if the postage is subsidized. It almost has to be.

      Even so, there's a matter of figuring out where the money is going with U.S. manufacture since the prices are still incredibly low compared to U.S. Labopr accounts for some of it, but even generous estimates of labor required and assuming the China manufacturer gets free labor, it's nowhere near making up the difference on a lot of items.

      One possibility is real estate. You know the market is warped when an office building has 45% (and falling) occupancy and they raise the rent causing several occupants to leave.

  13. Transport cost not important by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    Yup. Look at destination charges for vehicles. GMC $925-$1195 from USA to USA. BMW $995 from Germany to USA. Toyota $720-$835 from Japan. It is actually cheaper to ship it from overseas and then put it on a train and then on a truck than it is to just put it on a train and then on a truck.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Transport cost not important by calque · · Score: 1

      That's completely incorrect. The whole point of a destination charge is that it's equalized for all cars regardless of how far they were shipped. And GM doesn't manufacture all its cars in the US, BMW doesn't manufacture all its cars in Germany, and Toyota doesn't manufacture all its cars in Japan. And the cost of shipping from overseas is not included. http://www.kbb.com/car-advice/...

    2. Re:Transport cost not important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. A recent purchase from China cost $800 to get it shipped to Boston. It cost an additional $925 to get it out of their clutches to my house. Unable to get a quote until signed up.

      China Costs:
              Material $600
              Sea Freight $200

              Total $800

      USA Costs:
              Terminal Charges $35
              Customs Fee $290
              Transaction Bond $160
              Security Filing $30
              ISF Bond $70
              Pier Loading $165
              Courier $25
              Inland Shipping $150

              Total $925

  14. Empty Containers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On big problem with Shipping Containers is their sometimes one-way nature. My father was in Marine Insurance, and his biggest last big problem was how to get, say 100,000 empty Containers from say, Abu Dhabi, back to all the Ports where they are needed. (That's ~$300,000,000 worth of Containers, every few months...)
    Frankly, there's not much of interest in Abu Dhabi that's worth shipping out by Container.
    Currently, at US West Coast Ports, between a quarter and a third of incoming full Containers leave Port empty. Just dead space; it's costing companies like Maersk a Billion a year moving boxes of air around.
    Only two practical solutions had emerged- Collapsible Containers, where four Containers returned take the place of one, and Single-Use Containers, where they are broken up on the spot into scrap and shipped back to China to be recycled. (Other solutions, like turning them into Housing, are Silly. They still need to be shipped where needed, and making one livable costs ten times the Container value. There are usually cheaper local alternatives.)
    This was a few years back; maybe better solutions have emerged since.

    1. Re:Empty Containers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make them water tight and then float them back using tug boats? :D

    2. Re:Empty Containers by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Presumably the ship also needs to go back so getting rid of the shipping containers doesn't save all that much since you'll still need the containers at the other side.

  15. biking from China to USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Assuming 7,000 miles from China to USA, and biking at 12 mph, would take about 583 hours, or 24 days. I'm not used to thinking that way, but that seems in line with ship transportation. I'm used to hearing it taking 6 months, or a year for those early European explorers. Heh heh heh, I can imagine Magellan and 200 people on a quest to circle the Earth. They get on bicycles, and just start peddling away. The Queen of Spain should be able to afford that.

    1. Re:biking from China to USA by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Go on the shipping lines web sites and get the quotes on times and cost (automated tools) about $1200 to move one container from China to the US, with $950 of it is the Ocean rate, and a time estimate of 15 days.
      18 Knots = 20MPH
      look at
      https://www.searates.com/refer...
      I looked at
      I believe it was
      Changzhou, China to
      Seatle Wa

      which is a distance of 5900 miles - or 12.3 days at 18 knots
      BTW - did you do the math on shipping the shirts? less than 4 cents each (about 3.6 cents)

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
  16. Pollution might be worse !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... If you buy local, you need less transport...

    I just have to laugh at the stupidity of the above claim. The ridiculous ignorance of slashdot commenters never fails to amaze me

    No matter what kind of product to make - a T-Shirt, a book, or a vehicle, - raw materials must be sourced, and then preprocessed before any real assembly operation can commence

    It is the sourcing and pre-processing of raw materials which often emit the most pollution, not when the final product is assembled

  17. We Need to Extend This to Airline Luggage by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

    Seriously. We are currently in a state of half-a**ed implementation of containerization anyway. Checked bags must be "62 inch" bags (height, width, and depth adding to no more than 62") or they become "over-size" and subject to huge fees. According lots of people travel with bags that fit an almost standard set of dimensions: 27" x 21" x 14"; carry-ons are limited to being "45 inch bags" (22" x 14" x 9"). And unless you want all your belongings to be crushed beyond recognition it had better be a hard case, or have a rigid frame.

    Going will full containerization of airline luggage, with standard bag units, properly spec'd and designed, all of them rigid sided, would permit highly automated baggage handling, efficient design and loading of baggage holds, and freedom from abusive baggage handlers.

    --
    Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    1. Re:We Need to Extend This to Airline Luggage by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Seriously. We are currently in a state of half-a**ed implementation of containerization anyway. Checked bags must be "62 inch" bags (height, width, and depth adding to no more than 62") or they become "over-size" and subject to huge fees. According lots of people travel with bags that fit an almost standard set of dimensions: 27" x 21" x 14"; carry-ons are limited to being "45 inch bags" (22" x 14" x 9"). And unless you want all your belongings to be crushed beyond recognition it had better be a hard case, or have a rigid frame.

      Going will full containerization of airline luggage, with standard bag units, properly spec'd and designed, all of them rigid sided, would permit highly automated baggage handling, efficient design and loading of baggage holds, and freedom from abusive baggage handlers.

      would increase the incidence of some doofus accidentally walking off with your bag though. or vice versa.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    2. Re:We Need to Extend This to Airline Luggage by careysub · · Score: 1

      Automatic tracking from beginning to end (also helps with lost/rerouted luggage). No more looking for the bag on the carousel, it will signal when your bag is up. No ticket, no bag - or see security.

      Fedex tracks your package through the system. No reason the airlines can't get together and do the same. Todays airline baggage and handling and system is a perfect candidate for complete automation.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:We Need to Extend This to Airline Luggage by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Automatic tracking from beginning to end (also helps with lost/rerouted luggage). No more looking for the bag on the carousel, it will signal when your bag is up. No ticket, no bag - or see security.

      Fedex tracks your package through the system. No reason the airlines can't get together and do the same. Todays airline baggage and handling and system is a perfect candidate for complete automation.

      No kidding; nowadays, i check the bag, it gets the bar code label wrapped around the handle, i get the receipt with the corresponding bar code, it goes into the bowels of the system and is presumably tracked until it appears at the carousel, then the tracking stops and all the receipt is good for is showing them when I can't find the bag. which is less frequently than it used to be prior to tracking, why not close the last 10 feet of the loop?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  18. Re:Cost of fork-lift driver - U-Haul index by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most recent write up I can find is from 8/14.

    I suspect the ratio CA->TX/TX->CA has fallen somewhat with the decline in oil prices but most likely still > 1.

    CA population is still growing, but mainly at the bottom (read "undocumented") end of the income spectrum.
    Meanwhile, the middle+ income refugees continue to spread their toxic politics to CO, TX and any other state dumb enough not to follow Hungary's lead.

  19. So why can't I sent stuff "sea mail" any more? by davidwr · · Score: 2

    If I want to send a package overseas and I don't care if it takes 2-3 months to get there, I used to be able to save a ton of money by shipping it "sea mail."

    Now my only options are air mail. Sure, it will get there in 2-3 weeks or less but I'll be out $20 for something the size and weight of a small paperback. Grrr....

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  20. DVI-D and HDMI are the same signals by tepples · · Score: 2

    I was thinking I could maybe put together a frankenbox from other parts I had lying around, well I had a machine from 2006. But that had VGA and DVI outputs, my current monitor only has HDMI and DP.

    DVI-D and HDMI are the same signals in a different connector. Monoprice has cheap DVI-D to HDMI cables to let you use the 2006 PC with the current monitor.

  21. - bogus propaganda - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bs article is tactic to push the ipv6 'internet of things'. We have been and are being sprayed with nano chip chemtrails. Idiots sucked down every 'tech', ignored every robbery and assault, fraud 'wars' fraud 'bailouts' mass immigration, 'welfare' scum parasites, bought every 'tech', now you have been made into a cell phone yourself, and worse.
    On the post above, garbage chatter. So concerned about 'co2' while you let MILLIONS MORE IMMIGRANTS FLOOD IN.
    The jew tribe and trolls bs double talk is a Fail.
    Dupes don't realize the mass of shit they see on the web is by millions of jews trolls, and also computer generated fake posts.
    The bs to keeping push scum 'global' bs, this after a hundred million jobs have been shipped overseas, as over 100 million immigrants have been brought in to crush nordic whites. The same time the tribe cabal yammers 'be green'. It is all bullshit from the tribe, in every direction. Propganda. Know who owns you. They are not just a religion, they are a Race.- thezog.info - see all pages at right, also top of main page 'required reading' page, bottom half of list copy articles from vnn. don't waste time at vnn, also run by them just see pages, copy for backup.
    holo fraud - https://archive.org/details/TheLeuchterReport
    http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com -More faces, ee all pages at top -
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100825152627/http://jewishfaces.com/banking.html
    holodomorinfo.com - see pages don't waste time on videos, sites even 'jew truther' sites run by them so you sit 'reading' or 'follow' and don't do anything yourself to stop them. What else is in the chemtrails. Virus to kill by race. newworldwar.org/chemical.htm - ignore notes at bottom, skip rest of site.
    They jabber and distract to dumb down the real and dire. The links show the situation. Copy this to re read, give links to others, put links on notes, hand out to everyone

  22. Funny thing by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Funny thing - Chinese Gooseberries are called "kiwifruit" and they are shipped in to Beijing from NZ for less than trucking them in from another part of china.

  23. hype by sad_ · · Score: 1

    containers are so hyped, docker this, lxd that, stop it already!

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  24. Costs are hidden by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    I just saw a story on PBS that the port of jacksonville was trying to get tax dollars to pay to deepen the channel so bigger ships could come thru. They already are deepening the panama canal. This is all done with "free" money with respect to the shipper. If the shipping companies really want to have deeper channels, they should pay for them and increase the ship costs to the true unsubsidized cost. Imagine if I went to the government and asked for money to build a T-shirt factory. I'd get laughed at. But somehow the shipping companies have managed to convince us that we should collectively pay to export our jobs.

    1. Re:Costs are hidden by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      1) There are fees to use ports and canals; those may or may not cover all the costs but they can. A completely free ride for the shipper seems unlikely.

      2) Companies do get 'free money' to build all sorts of factories, regularly.

      3) Other infrastructure also gets 'free money' such as road building which is notoriously not charged back to users for the wear they put on it.

      4) This discussion is partly about energy/carbon/pollution for which the money element is separate. Yes, I'd like externalities to be included in prices to end-users via the shipping costs to steer users in the right direction, but the sheer efficiency of sea transport is still there, regardless.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:Costs are hidden by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      ... If the shipping companies really want to have deeper channels, they should pay for them and increase the ship costs to the true unsubsidized cost. ..

      The ships go where they can get in. If you don't deepen the channel they will go somewhere else. As long as there are other ports to go to, they have no reason to pay for the channel work.

      It's partly because of the subsidizing of truck transport. Trains have to pay for rails, but trucks don't and can use regular hiways. They pay taxes but that is less, so it amounts to a "subsidy". So, getting a truck to take the goods from the ship back to the other city is less cost than paying for a deeper channel in the other city.

      If all the port cities got together that might change. But might also be "conspiracy in restraint of trade" and illegal!

  25. recycle big time by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    if you live near a port, even a small one, you see containers piling up (literally) in parking lots and empty property, because so many come in and so few leave. it's been suggested often that we use them for housing the homeless or whatever but the reply is always that they're unsuitable for various reasons
    so, why not either enhance them, or have some standard procedure for enhancing them to make them usable for structures.
    thinking outside the box: figure out a way to make a ship or raft or barge or something out of empty containers so we can ship them back cheaper than they can make them!
    Ii assume these are made in China from Chinese steel?

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  26. Trans Pacific Partnership by Evan+Langlois · · Score: 1

    The reason no factories in the US is simple. CEOs want more money, so they outsource to slave labor then petition Congress to get rid if tarrifs. Like when Bush 'protected the American steel worker' by putting a tarrif on imported steel so America could compete. The CEOs of the steel industry's profit margin was protected, but the companies that consumed the steel, including a lot of telecomm, simply moved to another country. Jobs everywhere were lost in the ripple effect. Taxes/Tariffs on rare, dangerous, or polluting substances is fine, but tarrifs on all the JUNK coming in from China should be mandatory. Its not poorly engineered ... it lasts 1 day after warranty expires and that's it ... perfect for company profits. Why is it that a brand new product won't last 13 months, but the shit you bought 13 years ago still works fine? But thanks to the new TPP, we'll never see tariffs on the crap made by slave labor and our middle class will disappear until we're all corporate slaves!

  27. Missed my point by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    Government should subsidize when it is in the interest of its people. When these ports were first built, the US was a net exporter, so making shipping cheaper was a plus. Now we are a net importer, so we should no longer do this. Making foreign goods cheaper hurts domestic manufacturers. Sure goods may be cheaper, but if you have no one with a job to buy them, only the few benefit, with a long term detriment to your people.

    Trucking and rail move both domestic and foreign goods, so less of an issue.

    1. Re:Missed my point by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      That is not a given; there is a view that paying people to do something inefficiently is worse than motivating them to find a better use of their time.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
  28. I'm sure there's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some docker joke to be made here somewhere...

  29. There at the beginning, wasn't popular with everyo by keysdisease · · Score: 1

    Worked with a team at American President Lines back in the seventies that built the bar code tracking system for containers. Primitive tech, paper tape, punch cards and loads of green bar. Lots of trouble getting an optical scanner to interface with the 360/50 mainframe in the data center. But the biggest personal risk was to avoid letting the stevedores know what we were up to when visiting the wharves.

  30. You mean the loading Pallet? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Which are what are loaded into those boxes, and are probably what designed their size in the first place?

  31. hiding posts - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when bar at top shows '0 hidden' there are still posts they're hiding. have click show all comments button - and also slide bar over at top to see all posts. have to do Both to see all posts. notice what they hide. do both, click show all and slide bar over. see 'bogus propaganda' post below