Author Archives: Marc Levinson

Payless: A Brief Obituary

Back in 1956, there were a couple of events that helped shape the course of globalization. One, about which I wrote in my book The Box, was the first modern containership voyage. This would eventually lead to the behemoths, some carrying more cargo than 10,000 full-size trucks, that move much of the world’s trade today. The other was the most prosaic development one could imagine, the opening of a shoe store in Topeka, Kansas, by two entrepreneurial cousins, Louis and Shaol Pozez. Sixty-three years later, that company is about to go out of business, the victim of the globalization it played a small role in bringing about.

My family knew both Pozez families and we shopped in their store. Payless-National, as they ambitiously called it, aimed to offer quality shoes at discounted prices. It did so by keeping costs low. The floor was covered with linoleum, not carpet, and the wooden shelves weren’t even painted. Payless laid out its merchandise in shoeboxes. Sales clerks were few; customers were expected to find their size and try on the shoes themselves. In return for putting up with these rather austere conditions, shoppers could buy two pairs of shoes for five dollars.

The Pozez cousins were able to undercut their competitors thanks to a series of court decisions in the early 1950s that effectively prohibited manufacturers from fixing retail prices. Importing was not part of their strategy: the United States imported very little footwear in 1956. Although shoes cost far less to make in many other countries, the United States still had a vibrant shoemaking industry, with 1,900 factories employing more than a quarter-million people in places like Endicott, New York, and St. Louis, Missouri. Thousands more people were employed in tanneries and in factories that made synthetic shoe materials.

But while making footwear provided plenty of jobs, those jobs came at a cost. By today’s standards, shoes were expensive. Men’s dress shoes from Florsheim started at $18.95 a pair. That’s about $170 in today’s prices—which is far more than an equivalent shoe from Florsheim costs today. A pair of men’s loafers from Sears for went for $8.65, or about $77 in today’s money—nearly twice the price of the loafers available right now on Sears’ website. StepMaster children’s shoes cost $5.50 a pair. No wonder Payless’s offer of two pairs of shoes for five dollars seemed like a good deal to a bus driver or factory worker earning two bucks an hour. Payless became a huge success, operating thousands of stores. It was purchased by a big department store chain in the 1970s, then spun off as a publicly traded company, and  eventually ended up in the hands of private equity funds.

Footwear manufacturing has proven difficult to automate, making labor costs the single most important factor in choosing production locations. As factories in low-wage Asian countries filled millions of containers with cheap plastic and synthetic shoes and shipped them across the pacific at only a few cents per pair, the U.S. shoe industry couldn’t come close on price; today, about 98 percent of the shoes sold in the United States are imported, mainly from China. To keep its lead in the discount shoe business, Payless became one of the largest shoe importers. For it, as for many other companies, globalization was not a choice, but the only alternative.

What killed it, at the end, was the same thing that made it a success–the constant quest for lower prices. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average consumer price of footwear has gone up all of 8 percent over the past 25 years. Rent and workers’ wages, meager though those may be, have been rising much faster, squeezing shoe retailers’ margins. In that environment, even globalizers can end up as road kill.

Delivering the Goods

Perhaps more than any other industry, trucking should demonstrate the virtues of capitalism. Almost anyone can become a driver or start a trucking company. Since the federal government’s economic regulation ended in 1980, truckers have been able to drive whatever routes they wish, carry whatever type of freight is available, and charge whatever price the market will bear. Conversely, shippers can hire employees to drive company-owned trucks, can sign long-term contracts with trucking companies, or can hire an independent trucker to haul a single load. With hundreds of thousands of truck operators on the one side and hundreds of thousands of shippers on the other, the price of freight transportation fluctuates constantly based on supply and demand. This is the free market on steroids.

Or downers. Whatever economic theory says it should be, in the real world the trucking market is a mess. Shippers complain about terrible service, and their customers complain about blown schedules. Drivers, who often earn little or nothing when their vehicles are not moving, complain about congested highways and about having to cool their heels at a distribution center that is in no hurry to load or unload their truck. Trucking companies complain they can’t retain drivers. Meanwhile, many of the long-haul trucks on U.S. highways are running empty. Deregulation was supposed to put an end to that problem, but it didn’t. Local drivers now seem to spend much of their time making repeat deliveries to households that ordered online but weren’t at home when the order arrived, hardly a constructive use of capital and labor.

The extraordinary inefficiency of the trucking industry has not escaped notice. I recently spoke at a meeting organized by a company called FreightWaves, which is one of many trying to figure out how to create order out of trucking chaos. In addition to running a news service, it brings entrepreneurs touting solutions to the trucking industry’s problems together with investors who might finance their ventures and truck lines that might purchase their products. Some were selling software. Some were selling hardware. Some were selling services: Uber Trucking, which offers an app that a shipper can use to summon a driver, paid for dinner. Which is to say, Uber’s shareholders paid for dinner, because the company isn’t earning any profits that could cover such a bill.

The common vision of these visionaries is that technology can help squeeze the waste out of trucking. So far, though, their track record isn’t great. Trucking illustrates a paradoxical problem. The very things that economists praise about markets — the jockeying of many buyers and sellers to find the best deal, the constant pressure to innovate in order to eke out a profit, the dynamic benefits that arise from forcing prices down and inefficient players out — mean that there may be few commonalities among the participants. No one is in a position to coordinate or to impose order, so an innovation that may have great benefit overall — for example, a new system for matching drivers with loads or a device for keeping track of drivers’ hours — may not be used widely because it doesn’t serve the purposes of many industry participants.

In fact, once they’re done grousing, neither truckers nor their employers seem all that eager for change. Despite the purported driver shortage, the average weekly pay of long-haul truckers rose a scant 2% last year. After inflation, the year-on-year pay increase was zero. Even so, the number of people employed by general freight trucking firms reached an all-time high in 2018. This suggests the industry may not be quite as ripe for disruption as techno-optimists believe.

And what of the unhappy shippers? There’s an interesting development underway. Companies from WalMart and Amazon to your local furniture store seem to giving up on the industry’s ability to straighten itself out. They are buying more trucks, hiring more drivers as full-time employees, and handling a larger share of their freight transportation needs in-house.

This is a return to the old ways. Back before deregulation, about half of all over-the-road trucks were owned by the manufacturers and retailers who required their services. Even though these “private carriers” usually carried loads only in one direction and returned home empty, they provided cheaper, more reliable service than the regulated truck lines. In today’s environment, it’s likely cheaper for shippers to purchase trucking services than to manage their own truck fleets. They’re paying a premium for protection from a chaotic market that isn’t able to deliver the goods.

Of Sears and the Great A&P

The death of a major retailer rarely comes as a surprise. You can usually see the signs years ahead: the half-empty shelves, the dreary displays, the dim lighting, the odd combinations of merchandise as store managers struggle to fill space on the floor. The impending demise of Sears is no different. While the courts may have to decide whether Eddie Lampert, its chairman, has looted the company, as some investors claim, the truth is that by the time he took Sears over, in 2004, even a merchandising genius couldn’t have turned the chain around. Lampert made a bad situation worse when he combined Sears with Kmart, but he would have been hard-pressed to make it better.

Lampert is a financial guy, and like most financial guys he keeps his eye on the balance sheet. When it comes to retailing, though, the balance sheet doesn’t reveal the whole story. It will tell you about cash on hand — a valuable piece of information, to be sure — and about leases and credit card receivables, but it doesn’t capture the worth of a retailer’s most valuable asset, its brand.

There was a time when the Sears brand connoted reliability: whether you shopped in the store or ordered from the catalog, you expected quality merchandise at a reasonable price. It started to lose that reputation in the 1980s, when management was seduced by the glamour of selling stocks and real estate and lost interest in toys and underwear. By the time Wal-Mart began its nationwide expansion, in the 1990s, Sears had already forfeited much of its standing. Middle-class shoppers still went there for Craftsman tools and Kenmore appliances, but the rest of the business began to die.

The recovery plan involved buying Land’s End, the mail-order clothing retailer, in 2002. Land’s End, slightly trendy but definitely not haute couture, offered a plausible way to infuse a bit of excitement into Sears’s fashion offering without driving away long-time customers. But Sears couldn’t figure out what to do with it. Should Land’s End live alongside store apparel departments? Should it be the Sears apparel business? Management couldn’t decide, squandering an opportunity to restore a bit of the company’s diminished luster. All this occurred before Eddie Lampert loaded the company up with debt and Amazon induced consumers to do much of their shopping online. By the time of those events, Sears was already yesterday’s store.

To someone who has studied the rise and fall of the Great A&P, this story is familiar. Like Sears, A&P terrified its competitors for decades. Its stores were everywhere, and its commitment to low prices and its uncanny feel for changing consumer tastes made it the world’s largest retailer for more than 40 years. But in the 1950s, under managers who preferred to collect fat profits rather than investing in the business, A&P lost its edge. Customers complained that the stores were dowdy, and store brands like Ann Page and Jane Parker lacked the allure of the brands advertised prominently on national television. A&P became the place where grandma shopped, its name in such disrepute that the company tried to disguise its ownership of chains like Waldbaum’s and Food Emporium. No business strategy had a prayer of bringing A&P back.

Whatever the bankruptcy courts decide to do with Sears, I expect that the company will follow A&P to that great retail graveyard in the sky. A place where no one wants to be seen shopping doesn’t have much of a future in retailing.

Burdened by Bigness

Suppose your company invested billions of dollars in new equipment. And suppose now, very shortly after taking delivery, you’ve discovered that your investment was misguided. The machines you’ve bought are threatening to destroy your business. What would you do?

That, in essence, was the subject of a conference I spoke at in October at the Copenhagen Business School. Shipping is a very, very big business in Denmark, and of course Maersk Line, the world’s largest container shipping company, is headquartered on the Copenhagen waterfront. Maersk itself built the first of the megaships — ships that carry as much cargo as 8,000 or 10,000 trucks — back in 2006, when it launched what it called its E class (hence such clever ship names as Emma Maersk and Evelyn Maersk). There are now roughly 150 vessels this big or larger on the seas. More are on the way: the South Korean government just agreed to finance ships the size of 12,000 trucks. This is not something the world needs.

I’ve been spending some time of late studying how the megaships came to be, and I’m convinced that they are a colossal error. The ship lines that commissioned them, by and large, were transfixed by the idea of economies of scale: if you can actually fill one of these giant vessels, they can carry a single container for about 30 percent less than a ship half the size. But filling them has been a persistent challenge. Moreover, the people obsessed with achieving economies of scale at sea largely ignored the fact that these behemoths would create diseconomies of scale on land. With fewer ships calling but each ship discharging and loading many more boxes, ships spend more time in port, the ports are half-buried beneath mountains of containers, and service for the manufacturers and retailers who ship goods in containers has become much less reliable. These days, when a containership arrives in port, it’s behind schedule nearly half the time, and when the goods will reach their final destinations is anyone’s guess.

The ship lines have been praying that international trade will grow faster, as it did before 2009, and fill up all those half-empty ships. Some thoughtful people, including the experts who monitor shipping for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), think this will happen. My own view is that it’s highly unlikely. The world economy itself is likely to grow more slowly than it has in recent decades; China’s years of 10% annual growth are over. Adding to that, the gradual shift of manufacturing closer to end markets and the desire of manufacturers and retailers to minimize risks from malfunctioning supply chains will suppress demand for container shipping. Managers of ship lines, in my view, need to think very hard about where they’re going to make money, because they are probably not going to make much from operating ships.

Many of the people I met in Copenhagen, including the authors of a new McKinsey study envisioning the shipping industry of 2043, seemed to agree with my analysis. There was much discussion about the digital future. What that seems to mean is that ship lines might figure out how to use information technology to provide higher-value services to their customers. In other words, they might become logistics managers, coordinating the efficient flow of goods around the world for individual customers, rather than simply selling cheap transportation. It’s an alluring vision. Many start-up companies are now pursuing similar strategies, without the burden of owning all those money-losing ships. Ocean carriers have to figure out how to turn their underutilized floating assets into a competitive advantage even as they transform themselves into technology companies — and given the fairly bleak profit outlook for the shipping industry, some of them may not have much time to get it right.

Thin Ice

The news that Maersk, the container shipping giant, is sailing a containership from Vladivostok to St. Petersburg along the northern coast of Russia has drawn new attention to the consequences of climate change in the Arctic. While the warming of northern climes is sadly real, it is unlikely to bring about a major change in container shipping.

For ship owners and their customers, the attractions of the Northern Sea route are obvious. By sailing north rather than south from Shanghai, Busan, or Yokohama, a ship bound for Europe can shave several thousand kilometers off the trip, saving a couple weeks of travel time, a great deal of fuel, and the need to pay a steep toll to pass through the Suez Canal. A small number of commercial ships have traveled this route over the past couple years, carrying commodities, heavy equipment, and other cargoes. Some ports in northern Europe have begun to dream of becoming centers for exporting to Asia.

The Northern Sea route may well develop into a useful artery for bulk ships and other vessels on one-off voyages, but it seems quite unlikely to become a highway for containerships. First and foremost, ship lines employ their containerships in what is called “liner service,” meaning that they offer scheduled port calls at regular intervals. Between Asia and Europe, a carrier might create a “string,” a route calling at eight or ten ports from, say, Busan to Antwerp and back again, with enough identical vessels assigned to the string that it can guarantee an Antwerp-bound ship calling at Dubai every Tuesday and a Busan-bound ship dropping by Algeciras on Thursdays. The Northern Sea route is poorly suited to this sort of arrangement because, for the foreseeable future, it is likely to be navigable only a few months each year. If a ship line serves the route between June and September, what will it do with those ships the rest of the year? This is no small question: vessels are the most expensive part of running a container shipping operation, and ship lines that can’t keep their vessels operating near capacity tend not to survive.

A second challenge to the success of the Northern Sea route is that its most protected, least ice-prone areas, close to the Russian coast, have shallow water. This means that shipping companies would have to use vessels that are about a fifth the size of the biggest containerships in use between Europe and Asia today. The cost of providing a “slot” for a single container is much higher aboard a small ship than aboard a big one, so ship lines won’t be eager to employ such small vessels on lengthy routes. They could use larger ships by sailing farther from the coast, but that route is blocked by ice for a greater portion of the year and is more likely to require the use of icebreakers.

A third challenge is that there are no great population centers en route. Ship lines select the ports in each string carefully, estimating the average number of containers they will take on here and put off there, in an effort to keep their vessels as full as possible. There may not be enough cargo from Antwerp to Busan to justify running a ship that makes no stops in between.

As a recent study by economists at the Copenhagen Business School points out, my hypothetical trip between Busan and Antwerp covers 7,248 nautical miles via the Northern Sea route, 33 percent less than a voyage between the same points through the Suez Canal. In theory, there is money to be saved, even after extra costs for having icebreaker and emergency equipment on standby. But given the practicalities of container shipping, it’s going to be difficult for the Northern Sea route to live up to the headlines.

The Language of Globalization

I speak German, or at least I used to. I believe — I hope — that the decline of my fluency isn’t a sign of advancing senility. Rather, I think, it’s an artifact of globalization.

This has been on my mind since my recent appearance in a series of excellent programs about containerization broadcast by Austrian Radio. The host, Anna Masoner, speaks English better than I do; I offered to be interviewed in German, but she interviewed me in English and then arranged for a voiceover translation. Once I listened to the programs, I was very glad she had done it that way.

It’s not just that my German is more or less German German, a far cry from the language spoken in Austria. The more serious problem with my speech is that I use German words that native speakers have ditched for English alternatives. As a result, I feel a bit like a character out of Shakespeare walking onto a twenty-first-century stage. My language is fine. It’s just that people don’t talk that way any more.

It seems that every business in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria now has a Marketing Abteilung; words like “Vermarktung” and “Vertrieb” seem to have fallen into disuse. I know of one company that advertises its interest in making “Investments in Wirtschaft und Logistik,” and another that deals with investors through its “Investor Relations Abteilung.” If a firm wants to start selling abroad, it opens up an Import-Export Geschäft; “Einfuhr-Ausfuhr” apparently is no longer used. When employees want to talk about how the business is doing, they have “ein Meeting.” Younger people might be more inclined to have a “Meetup.” Whether that Meetup is masculine, feminine, or neuter I have not the slightest idea.

English, of course, is the language of globalization, so I can understand all this anglicized German when I hear it or read it. But it’s not so easy to speak it correctly if you don’t spend a great deal of time in German-speaking Europe, soaking up the latest linguistic advances. In effect, globalization has devalued my language skills. I’m glad that when ich wurde interviewt by Ms. Masoner, we spoke English.

Setting the Standard

The Australian National Maritime Museum, in Sydney, has mounted an unusual exhibition about the history and consequences of the shipping container, a subject near and dear to my heart. Appropriately enough, the exhibition is housed in containers spread around the museum’s grounds.

When the organizers asked me to write a post for the museum’s blog, I took the opportunity to explain why standardization has been so important to the growth of container shipping — and asked readers to imagine how tangled world trade might be if the same basic 40-foot container was not in use everywhere. The first containers used aboard a ship in Australia were 16 feet 8 inches long. No ship in any other country has ever carried boxes of that size, and you can imagine how difficult it would be for Australia to engage in international trade if its containers couldn’t easily be used abroad. The post is here. Many thanks to the museum’s staff for coming up with some great pictures and drawings to illustrate it.

Some Wisdom from Henry Kaufman

Sometimes, when you write history, you can end up feeling old. I had that feeling a couple of weekends ago, when Henry Kaufman ventured to Baltimore to talk to the Business History Conference, an organization of historians.

I’ve known Kaufman for many years, and when my neighbor in the audience said, “I don’t know who this person is,” it was hard to explain how important he was on Wall Street in the second half of the twentieth century — how he, then head of research at Salomon Brothers, and Albert Wojnilower, the chief economist at First Boston, presciently warned in 1981 that Ronald Reagan’s economic policies would drive interest rates and the dollar sky-high, or how Kaufman’s pronouncement in August 1982 that interest rates had entered a long-term downward trend awoke the stock market from years of slumber. Since then, Kaufman has come in for a good bit of criticism: he was insufficiently bullish on the stock market in the 1990s, it is said, and as a board member bears responsibility for the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a venerable investment bank, in September 2008. He remains bitter about his experience with Lehman, and he blames the Treasury and the Securities and Exchange Commission for telling the directors Lehman should declare bankruptcy. “I think it was partly a political decision to allow Lehman to fail,” he says, recalling the pressure on the Fed and the Bush Administration to force someone on Wall Street to lose big.

Kaufman is 90 now, and he continues to cast a skeptical eye on the markets. He has always been a bond guy, and bond guys, by nature, worry about risks more than opportunities. His greatest worry is the financial system itself. He thinks that regulators missed the boat in the 1990s when they phased out the rules that separated commercial banking from investment banking; they expected deregulation would lead to greater competition among banks, he recalls, but instead it brought large-scale consolidation. The Dodd-Frank law and the other reforms that followed the 2008-2009 crisis, he thinks, have reinforced that trend. “It preserved the enormous financial concentration that had taken place and even accelerated concentration. That was a mistake,” Kaufman says. The result, in his view, is a system that is even riskier, with rules that are too complicated for bank supervisors to enforce.

His recommendation is to force financial institutions to specialize. The advantage in having companies that deal only in insurance, or consumer banking, or money management, he says, is that managers and regulators could better understand their finances. “I dare anyone to tell me they can go into a large financial institution [today] and tell me the details,” Kaufman insists. “You can’t,” he says, because the companies are too complicated to comprehend. The idea that “living wills” will enable them to disentangle their affairs in the event of crisis, as Dodd-Frank commands, is fatuous, Kaufman adds. Even with a living will, the markets will devalue a troubled institution’s assets, spreading pain widely.

Kaufman knows the world has moved on, and he is not optimistic about bringing the old times back. But he distinctly remembers how, back when Wall Street firms were partnerships for which partners bore personal responsibility, they behaved differently than they do today. When he was hired at Salomon in 1962, he recalls, he was told, “Go home and tell your wife you’re going to be liable for $2 billion.” Answering to shareholders isn’t the same thing at all.

Dirty Laundry and High Productivity

Not too long ago, on a visit to Copenhagen, I took several shirts to a laundry. The proprietor greeted me brusquely with the words, “I can’t do express.” He wanted four days to wash and press my shirts, longer than my remaining time in the city.

That evening, on my way to dinner, I walked down the same street and saw the owner still at work, surrounded by piles of clothes. Suddenly, his disinterest in my patronage made sense. Denmark’s economy is strong, unemployment is negligible, and there aren’t many workers willing to accept low-paying, low-productivity jobs in laundries.

I’ve replayed this incident lately as the I’ve heard complaint after complaint about the purported shortage of labor in the U.S. economy. Trucking companies, manufacturers, fast-food restaurants, and retailers all say they can’t hire enough help. The truth, though, is that the supply side of the labor market–prospective employees–responds pretty quickly to economic signals. The reason firms can’t hire enough help is that the compensation they offer is too low. The reason for that, simply enough, is that the way the firms plan to use those workers won’t result in sufficient productivity to justify higher wages.

As an economic matter, it’s good if those low-productivity jobs disappear. On another trip to Denmark, many years ago, a labor union leader told me, “We want to be a wealthy economy, and we can’t be a wealthy economy if we have low-productivity jobs.” It was that union leader’s view that Danish businesses should move low-paying jobs abroad and focus on providing high-wage, high-productivity jobs in Denmark.

You won’t find many union leaders suggesting that in the United States–nor business leaders or politicians. We pay far more attention to the number of jobs in our economy than to the quality of those jobs, and we’re reluctant to let low-productivity jobs vanish. Thus, debate over raising the minimum wage revolves around whether this would cause unemployment among hamburger flippers rather than whether higher labor costs would lead fast-food chains to develop new equipment that would raise productivity. Debate over immigration is colored by the assertion that we need immigrants to come and do low-wage jobs U.S. citizens don’t want, an assertion that allows us to avoid discussing why employers aren’t investing in capital equipment that might render those jobs more attractive and better-paid.

Some companies, of course, see profit in employing low-wage workers and don’t want to change that business model. But if we look deeper, tens of millions of us have selfish reasons for cherishing low-productivity work. While we give lip service to higher productivity, we also want an economy in which it’s cheap and easy to find someone to clean the house, babysit the kids, and mow the lawn. We like going out for an inexpensive dinner and paying a few bucks for an Uber ride across town, treats that would be far less affordable if there were fewer workers who have no better alternatives than taking low-productivity jobs with low pay.

If we want to raise living standards for all Americans, we can’t do it with sluggish productivity growth. That means that we may have to make some sacrifices. That’s how I solved my laundry problem in Copenhagen. I tossed my shirts in the washing machine, let them drip dry, and ironed them myself. Admittedly, my ironing skills were a bit rusty. But if having a high-productivity economy means I’ll need to keep them honed, I suppose I can manage.

Who Owns the Curb?

How we define a problem often affects how we think about it. Consider the question of how we deal with the demand for curb space in our urban areas. If one were to approach this question as an engineer, one might look for ways to redesign our streetscape and reallocate the curb to certain users. If one were to approach this question as an economist, however, one might ask whether there’s a pricing problem.

As discussed earlier this month at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB), a government-sponsored research organization, this is an engineering problem. The assertion is that new ways of doing business have left us with too many vehicles at the curb. The growth of online shopping means more trucks making deliveries, and the growth of ride-sharing services has brought Uber and Lyft drivers waiting to pick up customers. Therefore, the logic goes, we need to provide more unloading zones for trucks and more pick-up locations for ridesharing vehicles. The presentations at TRB suggested that other uses, such as bus lanes, bike lanes, and parking of passenger vehicles, may have to give way.

The underlying assumption, you may have noticed, is that because consumers want online shopping and ridesharing, our streets should accommodate these uses. But there’s another way to look at the problem. Curb space is obviously of great value in some urban areas. That value belongs to local taxpayers. Every time a UPS truck parks at the curb to provide “free delivery” from Amazon, those local taxpayers are subsidizing Amazon customers unless UPS is paying the full market value of that parking space. Every time an Uber driver idles at the curb in Midtown Manhattan, she is occupying valuable real estate without paying for the privilege, and that subsidy is reflected in the artificially low cost of the ride.

Can the demand for curb space be met with economic measures rather than engineering? There is enormous pressure not to find out; in 2014, when Washington, DC, imposed a $323 annual fee for a decal that permits a truck to park in a loading zone, the trucking industry howled–even though that fee, about 88 cents per day, is far less than automobile drivers would gladly pay for a space one-third that size in many parts of the city. But perhaps if trucks and ridesharing vehicles paid the full value of the public assets they use, consumers would make less use of their services and businesses would save money by accepting deliveries at times when the value of curb space is low. Such changes could help relieve traffic congestion without remaking urban streets. There’s something to be said for paying full freight.