By Sarath Obeysekera

The recent article Helming a Sea Change: Building the Future Workforce for US Shipbuilding” (January 12, 2026) correctly identifies shipbuilding as a cornerstone of national strength, economic resilience, and security. Ships still carry more than 80 percent of global trade, and yet the United States—once a dominant maritime power—now accounts for barely 0.2 percent of global commercial shipbuilding, a dramatic fall from its 5 percent share in the 1970s. In defense shipbuilding, the imbalance is even more alarming: China now produces more than three warships for every one built in the United States.

The diagnosis is clear: America faces a critical shortage of skilled maritime labor, and this gap will widen as global demand for ships and naval assets accelerates over the next three decades. The question is whether the proposed remedies—reassessing nautical education, creating new maritime academies, and modest private-sector incentives—are anywhere near sufficient.

The Workforce Reality No One Wants to Name

Shipbuilding is hard, physical, and highly disciplined work. It requires welders, pipefitters, electricians, naval architects, outfitters, and planners willing to work long hours in industrial environments. In today’s US labor market, younger generations are understandably drawn toward technology, finance, or services rather than heavy manufacturing. Even when shipyards raise wages, they struggle to attract and retain workers at scale.

This creates an uncomfortable truth: the United States cannot rebuild a globally competitive shipbuilding industry relying solely on its domestic labor pool. Demographics, skills mismatches, and lifestyle expectations make that mathematically improbable.

What emerges instead—often without being openly acknowledged—is a system that resembles neo-slavery with pay.”

What Neo-Slavery with Pay” Really Means

The phrase is provocative, but it reflects a global reality. Many advanced economies already rely on migrant labor to sustain industries their own populations no longer wish to serve—construction, shipyards, caregiving, agriculture, and logistics. Workers are paid, often better than in their home countries, but they live in constrained conditions, with limited mobility, limited political voice, and a narrow economic role.

The United States already benefits indirectly from this system through global supply chains. Ships built in South Korea, China, or Japan are constructed by workforces that include migrants living in dormitories, company housing, or tightly regulated townships. The difference is that this neo-slavery with pay” happens offshore, out of sight.

If the US wants ships built at home, it must confront this reality directly.

A Radical but Realistic Proposal: Immigration Linked to Shipbuilding Townships

Rather than pretending that marginal reforms will solve a structural labor crisis, the US should adopt a streamlined, sector-specific immigration framework tied explicitly to shipbuilding and maritime manufacturing.

Key elements could include:

1. Purpose-Driven Immigration
   • Fast-track visas for skilled and semi-skilled shipbuilding workers from countries with strong maritime traditions.
   • Clear pathways tied to employment in certified shipyards and suppliers.
2. Planned Shipbuilding Townships
   • Purpose-built, affordable townships near major shipyards, combining housing, healthcare, schools, and vocational training centers.
   • These would revive the historic shipyard town” model that once powered US industrial growth.
3. Contractual Protection and Oversight
   • Transparent wage structures, enforceable labor rights, and independent oversight to prevent exploitation.
   • Mobility within the maritime sector, even if broader labor mobility remains limited initially.
4. Skills Transfer and National Benefit
   • Mandatory training and mentorship programs to transfer skills to US citizens over time.
   • Integration with community colleges, unions, and maritime academies.

This is not about charity. It is about national survival in industrial and defense capacity.

The Moral Discomfort—and Why It Must Be Faced

Calling this model neo-slavery with pay” forces an ethical reckoning. Yes, such systems risk exploitation if poorly designed. But refusing to name the issue does not make it disappear. The alternative is continued decline: empty shipyards, delayed naval programs, strategic vulnerability, and permanent dependence on foreign builders.

The real moral failure would be to demand world-class shipbuilding without being willing to create the human systems that make it possible.

Rebuilding Ships, Rebuilding Communities

If done transparently and humanely, shipbuilding-linked immigration could do more than fill labor gaps. It could:

• Revitalize declining industrial regions
• Rebuild middle-skill manufacturing ecosystems
• Restore America’s maritime credibility
• Strengthen national security in a volatile world

The United States once built ships—and cities—at scale because it aligned labor, housing, policy, and purpose. Today, rebuilding that capacity requires courage to challenge comfortable narratives.

Shipbuilding cannot be resurrected with slogans alone. It requires hands, skills, and people willing to do the work. If those people must come from abroad, then the US should design a system that is honest about the trade-offs, firm about protections, and bold enough to match the scale of the challenge.

Anything less is not strategy—it is denial.

Regards

Dr Sarath Obeysekera