According to both Conway's and Jane's at least, starting in 1943 and launching in 1944 those Escorts using simplified pre-fabricated building techniques lowered equal quality completion times from 5-12 months to 4-5 months and other 'construction time reduced between 3 and 8 months.

That's significant to those authors.

As for resources, the more ships you build the more resources get through.
The more escorts you build, the fewer of the above you lose.(not to mention aircraft in asw support like how we defeated the Uboat).

Although I agree with the point that alot of the post-war boom was benefit from war-time, not pre-war lessons, the Germans were already more efficient than the Americans and that's supposedly where the Japanese got their ideas from eventually.

As for crews. Ironically enough, one of my clients is part of the S Korean shipping industry who taught me that it was the Japanese expansion of industry, companies(that became independently Korean) and Korean man-power which he taught me was also why so many Koreans and Taiwanese were not only part of the Japanese military after 1943(though he said htey would have been better off allowing from start) but also merchant marine and new Korean and Formosan companies started up.

But I get your points thank you.

It still seems that if Japan could have been at least as efficient as the Americans, that even if they only produced 1 for every 3 US cruisers or battleships or aircraft carriers, that it would have made a significant difference.

Given that for the early part of the war their advantage nearly cost us to lose Guadalcanal etc with what they actually had, it would seem logical to assume they could have done even better had theyhad more of each type of ship.

In the same way I think Rommel could have won, or at least done alot better in North Africa if he had only 25% let alone 50% more tanks, I think the Japanese Navy could have, especially early in the war, have done similarily but in naval terms instead.