I don’t know, I feel like it works on both levels really. There are actual people that think like that and it’s insane. The US trade war doesn’t really help, It paints China as the bad guy even though they’re only doing the same thing as every other country in the world.
By all means demand China improves in areas which makes sense such as blatant copyright violation and human rights abuses but not this. Making cheap cars is hardly nefarious.
Well the US has 1.2 million prisoners who get paid on average 86 cents a day. So effectively slave labor. That they aren’t directly building cars doesn’t matter because money is fungible. Every dollar saved not paying prisoners is more money elsewhere in the economy.
Ugh I can’t believe I’m wading into a “who’s worse” thing on the internet, but here we go! Are the imprisoned Uyghurs all convicted criminals? Not that it makes it ok that the US prisoners are effectively slave labor but they did do something to get there (yeah yeah unfair justice system sure but I want to believe most are there for a legit reason). Maybe the Uyghurs broke the law of “don’t be a Uyghur” and the US prisoners all jaywalked. I don’t know. Even if we can say one is worse, everybody sucks. Why did I say something here? I feel gross now. I have to go take a shower. Look what you’ve made me do! It looks like I’ve defended effective slave labor and somehow endorsed the US’ incarceration system!
I can’t believe I’m wading into a “who’s worse” thing on the internet,
China. China is way worse. It’s not even a fair comparison.
China has a near 99% conviction rate of all “trials”. People get disappeared all the time at an alarming rate. Criticizing the government is illegal and silenced immediately. Buying a woman (trafficking) is punishable by three years in prison. Importing an invasive species of plant is punishable by 7 years in prison. Buying/owning an airsoft rifle can land you life in prison.
They are currently violating the maritime borders of many countries, to the point where they are deploying nets as a way to “claim” the waters well beyond what they’re entitled to by international law.
During covid they welded shut the entrance to buildings to forcibly keep people inside. And many of those people died from starvation or being ill and not receiving care. Then there were those buildings that caught fire and the occupants couldn’t get out.
Then again during covid it was mandated that “foreigners” were not allowed into grocery stores, restaurants, hospitals, etc. And it didn’t matter if you lived their for decades, or your whole life, of you weren’t Han Chinese you’re a foreigner. Some people even had signs up that said “blacks are not allowed inside”.
And this isn’t the people’s fault. They’re working off of information and mandates given to them by their government. A government that has a death grip on all communication in the country.
And this doesn’t even get into the allegations of organ harvesting of the Uyghurs (and others). And yes, “only allegations” because that kind of thing would be done in very dark and secure basements. Although there are first hand accounts of people who witnessed such things who managed to get out, it’s anecdotal but there are more than one account.
Edit: just to add. I’m not American, and don’t live in the US. I think that country is terribly broken in many, many ways. I would never want to ever live there, but I would choose the US in a heartbeat if it was down to that place or China.
they have dropped subsidies, and the companies making terrible product, and those with unsustainable business models are collapsing… Weltmeister, Lepin… all defunct.
I get your sarcasm, but Chinese products are life savers in 3rd world countries like mine. My brother bought a Chinese pickup truck for $3500 brand new. American trucks are at least 10 times that. People there work a whole month for $500 - $900. No one can and will never afford that shit. Same goes for other products like cellphones, computers… Etc. an iPhone there costs $1200 - $1400 and a Chinese one costs $300 max and it does the job no problem. People in those countries love China.
Iraq is where I’m originally from, and Chinese products are ubiquitous there. They even built schools and hospitals there. Sorry for misunderstanding at first.
Not that we should have the contracts and control a country like that, but I’d like to think there could have been a win/win. Would have been nice to have a friendly and supported Iraq, on its way to healing some, at the end of the day.
Overall, a failure of US leadership on all fronts. Any positive results may have just been a bridge too far in the minds of politicians and rallying the public just not worth it for them. Silly.
That’s exactly what I meant, a win win situation. “Hey, we know we fucked up, but here let us get you some very much discounted contracts to rebuild your country”. And don’t get me started on politicians. :/
Edit: I meant to say, you’ve worded it correctly/better than I did :)
Not “Asians”. Companies that follow the CCP’s policies and ways of doing business.
What you did was typical pro-CCP misdirection. You took “fear of cheap Chinese EVs” and ran with that to “Asians bad”. Chinese are not all Asians and the CCP is not a race.
Idk, I didn’t feel like they were pushing an agenda
The conflation of “Asians” being always applied to China is a common CCP propaganda tactic. There are many Asian countries, like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, etc. These places are known for good quality products. They are all Asian. So yes, pushing the racism angle on commentary of products coming from a country not known for quality is an agenda. And to be clear, I didn’t say “China doesn’t make quality products”, I said it’s not known for quality. Which is different from say bad quality outright.
The mere use of the words “cheap Chinese” in the title here is meant to inspire racism though. It’s intentional too. Our government encourages and spreads it to encourage Americans to view themselves as better or more valuable than Chinese people. It works.
China is just the new Japan. And on copyright, the US was big on intellectual piracy for decades and even had government department dedicated to stealing intellectual property from the British Empire.
Idk what whataboutism you’re referring to, this comment chain started with someone referencing yellow peril and someone else getting triggered about it.
Yup. Once you go down the rabbit hole of what kind of CCP propaganda gets pushed constantly, it’s eye watering. I’ve been to China at its peak (2011), and I have multiple Chinese family members born and raised in China. The propaganda is no joke. It’s subtle and everywhere. You say “I think Chinese EVs aren’t safe”, then you’ll start getting accused of attacking “Asians”, which is a classic technique to push the argument from “manufacturing practices” right over to racism.
I’ve never seen anyone get accused of attacking Asians for such a thing but I’ve seen “Chinese propaganda” to dismiss comments often.
I think the main discussion right now is that western car companies are stalling the transition out of greed and getting the government to help them by banning the competition. This seems like oil company meddling to me.
Your hate boner is causing you to completely miss the picture. For all this talk about propaganda, you are literally spewing out oil industry talking points.
you are literally spewing out oil industry talking points.
Not at all. My original comment in this thread was replying to a comment that made it seem another person was vilifying “Asians” as opposed to talking about the technology.
If you’re talking about my other comments in this post, then that’s still not true. I’m not saying, and haven’t said, that EVs are bad. I’m saying China is contributing to massive amounts of ecological damage. They produce massive amounts of of e-bikes and EVs, and then throw them into a field never to be used. This is being done to meet quotas so they can get government subsidies, and to boost numbers.
It’s not about the damage of making batteries and other components, it’s the damage being done by creating those things at such a scale that a lot of it is wasteful and unnecessary. And to top it off, there’s going to be even more damage as those vehicles rot in those huge fields and leach harmful stuff into the ground.
So no, I’m not “spewing out oil industry talking points”. I hate that people just assume what you’re saying without taking a moment to understand the context. The oil industry is among the nastiest groups of people to ever live, but that doesn’t give EV makers a free pass to do whatever. The reality is that, right now, making EVs is a dirty process. So it has to be done right and carefully, otherwise we won’t be around to see the benefits.
Unregulated capitalism loves slavery, we just like to pretend it’s not there because it’s in a country with people who speak a different language (mostly).
Somewhat unrelated: IINM most Europeans don’t drive even a quarter of the max range of EVs on most of their trips. The current range of EVs should be just fine it you plug it in every day like your phone. Getting an EV that can get you to work and back or to a friend and back without charging should already allow to buy an EV that’s quite affordable.
Most Europeans have one, max 2 cars per household. A fuckton of Europeans also go on holiday with their cars once or twice a year.
One car needs to work for most use cases. It’s fine if you have more cars than people in the house that one of them is a 100 mile range commuter, but a different kettle of fish if the same car needs to do an 800+ mile trip to the Mediterranean in summer and a 500 mile ski trip in winter.
Also, I know a lot of people who do more than 100 km per day - and that is important. When you are buying a car, you aren’t looking only at what you need now, but what you might need in the future.
Then a plug in hybrid or elecric car with range extender motor makes more sense. I think it's pretty dumb to be carrying around expensive, heavy batteries everywhere you go that only get used fully twice a year.
not sure about environmentally friendly,friendlier sure, but a well developed public transit system and biking infrastructure beats any kind of car based infrastructure
We need the incrementally more eco-friendly options as well. Most pickup truck driving office workers won’t suddenly get a bike and change their ways, so a more eco friendly personal vehicle is probably a lot more likely to reduce emissions for that demography.
Complements. The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure. Let’s apply this more intelligently this time - recognize that some areas are more built up than others and different solutions scale differently . In general that can be a good thing, but we need interconnected services for everyone. That does include cars in many areas, although I agree a worthwhile goal for cities/town centers is that people not need a car
I also want to add that if public transit was more more common; it would EVENTUALLY spread to the rural areas just in a more limited fashion. Also, towns do build up as they age, it’s not like they are static.
“Efficient” covers a lot of things. There are often reasons to avoid what is technically the most efficient solution by some measure. For trains, their high up front cost has to be made up by low marginal cost, which typically means having a high number of passengers for each stop.
And before you say it, no, I’m not demanding they be profitable, just that they be cost effective.
Trains and good public transport are one of the most productive things economically and the best tools for rising economically for individuals, it might have a higher up front cost (which I don’t think it has, I highly doubt a mile of tracks costs more than a mile of road, especially long term), but it’s absolutely worth it long term.
pretty sure a lot of US towns spawned from being railroad stops or railroad adjacent, if they can make that happen, they can also revitalize the local economy, meanwhile cars are woefully inefficient and serve more as a gatekeeping device, if you need a car to function you have basically put an entry fee on society.
which I don’t think it has, I highly doubt a mile of tracks costs more than a mile of road, especially long term
It does. Highway costs around $10M/mile, and rail (without tunnels) close to $120M/mile. We also don’t need to build many new highways, while our aging rail infrastructure needs a lot of work just to get what we have up to snuff before we even talk about new rail.
Mostly, this comes down to things that go away with experience. Get rail projects going en mass and the problem will go away. That said, hooking up every town along the route is only going to make the initial build out worse.
well the good news is that while you accounted for costs going down once projects are built, you also failed to consider the difference in capacity between railroad tracks and roads and also the maintenance costs that are gonna be much higher for roads.
so even if it’s more expensive upfront which it really isn’t, it’s so much better long term
The last miles are a huge problem in villages. Train stops and you then walk 5 miles every time? The bus needs to ride every 30 minutes to bring along 5 people that’s super expensive.
Also everyone there already has a car anyways since it’s basically required there.
Cities however can use public transport far more efficiently.
The reason we’re stuck in this auto-dystopia (are we auto-asphyxiating? ;-) is people wanting one size fits all infrastructure.
The reason the US is a car dependent dystopia is because they let the auto industry dismantle a shitton of public infrastructure.
Just because you build public transport infrastructure doesn’t mean you can’t have your car, look at switzerland, netherlands, they have good public transport/bike infrastructure and still have cars.
Having great public transportation actually makes it better for people who only want to use cars, because it takes off a lot of people from the road who now have alternative options.
Trains and trans are a more cost effective and environmentally friendly way to transport the masses. It can work to a surprisingly small populations as evidenced by all of the small disparate towns in Switzerland, Norway and Denmark that depend on them.
Of course no solution works everywhere but cars should never be our first option.
Don’t forget working from home. Proven by the lockdown air quality to be the most environmentally friendly option. Remember this when you’re employer is asking you to “return to the office”.
Honestly, just take a basic normal car, and replace its engine with an electric one. No on screen entertainment, no cameras, no AI bull shit, no self driving. Just as basic as it gets.
Backup cameras are required on all 2018 or newer vehicles in the US and Canada, so you will need at least one in the back and a small screen for that, maybe hide that screen in the review.
This imaginary basic car should also come with a double-din radio so it can be upgraded like the old days.
I wish they sold me just a double din hole with cables ready for connection. All stock radios single or double din suck ballsack for what they are charging.
Its a nice idea which probably has a lot of complex implications. It would probably be a huge pain to figure out dimensions and compatible electric motors for every brand of non-electric vehicle, so the production of replacements would become very wide. Typically, the battery of an EV isn’t just a brick in the engine room, but it’s a whole range of cells along the length of the vehicle. Using the same space as the combustion engine might leave you with a vehicle with terrible range. Also, the safety of a car takes the engine into account. Replacing a combustion engine with an electrical engine would likely require a whole new safety overview for each individual model.
I honestly really hope that your suggestion would work, but I’m not expecting to see this becoming a wide solution before EVs dominate the market anyway.
I don’t think he meant to literally take the ice out of a camera and replace it with a motor and battery.
But rather he meant, make a new ev, on an EV chassis, but without all the nonsense that drives up costs without adding significant value.
I don’t need touch screen everything with 3d gaming built in, gull wing doors, and custom flush door handles that don’t work if you have a hand injury or any type of disability.
You can buy aftermarket android touch screen headunits with cameras for £150, they are not expensive at all, just a basic android tablet with a few extra ports
Yes, the absolute basic required technology to make it road legal, physical switches and either physical gauges or a non-touch screen for gauges if that’s cheaper.
The reason everything is on a touch screen now is that it’s cheaper than physical switches, as ridiculous as that seems. And yes, I greatly prefer physical switches.
Buy and wire multiple switches on every car, requiring wiring harnesses, ECM IO pins etc. or pay an intern a minimal sum once so he can put “designed Chevrolet in-dash console” on his resume. Then never update it even though it supports OTA updates and is a glitchy mess, Chevy
This is the same reason so many products come with a stupid Bluetooth app now rather than more than one button. Pay once rather than pay on every unit.
Maybe something like the SEXY buttons for Teslas actually become a more common thing. Wireless buttons that you can stick almost anywhere you want and set up to control what you want.
IIRC one of the issues with the 737 Max was that it had wireless internal components whose lithium ion batteries could catch fire. If you can’t even get batteries right on a product constantly maintained by a professional crew, what are the odds of it working out well in a car?
What’s the incentive? Most people will have to buy a car anyways, so without a different incentive, it’s better for every manufacturer to sell you a 60k+ car where the margins are way higher. If profit is the sole motive it’s a no brainer.
The problem is you can’t efficiently electrify a vehicle designed for fossil fuels. The requirements differ too much.
Actually EV conversions were common before we got intentionally designed EVs and the original Tesla roadster was built on a standard Lotus body and frame, but luckily we’re beyond that now.
You can still choose to electrify a vehicle now but you get poor performance and range, unbalanced handling, and pay way too much for a mediocre vehicle. It’s bot worth it
They mean at the design/manufacturing level, not retrofitting.
They mean just creat a simple ev car with only the needed designs to house the battery, controller and electric motor(s).
They mean discard all ideas of “futuristic” interiors, techs, or anything. Just build a modest car with an electric powerplant and battery storage. Then stop.
Fire any designer who tells you AI could improve the product.
Think this is the idea behind the GM Ultium platform (and probably others). They always held out “skateboard” as the goal, although I don’t know if that’s still a thing. Create essentially wheels and a plank that include all the power and drive components, modify to a small set of sizes, and crank them out by the millions. Then each car is a unique body and interior on top of the “skateboard”. As the platform gets to scale, you can drive the cost down, while still making unique cars on top of it - including low end cars
Fire any designer who tells you AI could improve the product.
That would be pretty dumb. It’s entirely possible to use AI in the design and engineering phase without AI being in the product that’s delivered to the customer. It’s also entirely possible for AI to be used in areas like crash mitigation, improving the handling in poor road conditions, or optimizing charging speed to improve battery life. Those uses of AI are largely invisible but offer a tangible improvement to the vehicle without being what anyone would consider luxurious. Choosing to ignore a design option because it sounds like something trendy is a great way to design a product that’s a worse value for the money.
OP could have been more clear, but it’s not unusual for people to take the worst possible interpretation in order to debate something no one was arguing.
What this entire thread is about is just giving us a 2005-2010 era car that’s electric. An audio deck with B/T only. No wifi, no Internet connectivity to the manufacturer, all the Laas nonsense with the updates and shit.
Just a vehicle that happens to be electric, not a computer on wheels.
That’s basically the Mini Cooper EV. Took the guts of a BMW i3 and dropped it in the shell of a Cooper S. They even left the engine vent on the hood.
It’s a fun car, and relatively inexpensive for the current crop of EVs, but its range is limited. We’re already moving past the era where this is a good idea.
Batteries will need a frame change if you don’t want to sacrifice the trunk or something. And range will be bad unless you improve areo dynamics and heating. But I think the Bolt and the Nero are pretty close to their ice counterparts.
Yeah that was the problem with the Nissan Leaf. It basically used the same frame as an ICE car, (and it wasn’t like it was a big SUV either) so all the batteries had to go in the back, and you had no storage and also there wasn’t really enough space in the back to have enough batteries to make it have decent range.
They did make the leaf plus that has decent range with the same formfactor though. Also I’m quite sure the batteries are not in the trunk, unless that’s where they put the extras in the plus version or something? Our 2015 leaf had significantly more trunk space than our brand new bolt despite being of similar dimensions. The bolt does have better rear leg room though.
The main issues with the leaf stem from not having any active heating/cooling for the battery and using an uncommon plug for level 3 charging that is going the way of the dodo. If you live in a temporate climate and don’t need to fast charge for road trips the leaf is a totally acceptable car IMO.
The $2,000 price was legit, but that didn’t include batteries. It was another $300 or so for heavy lead acid batteries, $500 if I wanted a lithium-ion battery pack (3 kWh), $710 for a bigger lithium pack (5 kWh), and $1,050 if I wanted a giant lithium battery (6 kWh).
The article goes on to say that shipping is a big deal, too. It requires thousands for a space in a container. But the total clocked under $9K IIRC
The Chinese government is subsidising their car industry, so they can engage in dumping, and decimate our car industries. When our domestic car industries are dead, they'll raise prices. It's like Amazon or any other scummy megacorp that kills local businesses.
This being said, it's hard to feel sorry for companies who also receive plenty of government subsidies and tax breaks, broke the law on emissions testing and likely killed a lot of people because of it, and refused to innovate or lower prices out of sheer greed.
a comment in the article you linked says this better than I ever could:
This whole narrative about alleged “subsidies” to Chinese EV makers and them “losing $35,000 per vehicle” is pure propaganda. Firstly, that company - Nio - is a relatively new one and it is still ramping up its production. A year ago when they were not selling EVs yet but invested a lot in R&D it could be said that they were losing infinite amount of money per vehicle - because infinity is what you get from dividing by zero. Both this logic and this math are erroneous. Tesla was losing money for years even after it started making and selling its cars.It kept going by taking money from investors in exchange for shares. That is exactly what the Chinese EV companies do. So secondly, those are not “subsidies” but investments, even if the money comes from Chinese government entities. This article states itself that local governments take stock in companies in exchange for investment - exactly the same thing Tesla investors did.
The article also talks about BYD, a more established manufacturer than Nio, that is making profits selling electric cars.
Selling at a loss is how you build volume and reach the economies of scale that drive down costs.
If you fiddle around half-heartedly putting out small numbers of EVs, you’ll never come close to competing with a company that puts out over a million a year. A lot of automakers still aren’t willing to commit, and they’re whining about the position they chose to put themselves in.
I truly don’t care if China destroy the car industry, it’s fucking ridiculous how expensive some basic shit is. In my opinion if you introduce a feature into your cars, you have ten years before it should become standard.
Hear me out: a bare minimum electronics car extremely reliable, no screens no bells and whistles and with the smallest possible engine battery that costs less than $5.000 💥
You can get an electric motorcycle for that price. Even electric microcars cost more than $5000. Unless you want to buy a Chinese tin can death machine on four wheels that aren’t street legal.
It isn’t “terrible”, it’s ugly because of purely aesthetic design choices: specifically that Fiat Multipla style “forehead ridge”. It’s a styling problem – not a form factor or price point one.
I mean there’s still a good amount of people in my position where you can’t fit 3 car seats in any ev in the market. Haven’t checked in the past year, maybe it’s changed but I also can’t afford to waste 60k+
Honestly it feels like most companies producing child seats and strollers and whatnot (as well as the stores that stock and sell them) have stopped putting any focus on solutions for 2 or more children and instead only produce solutions for only children. I’ve got 2 young kids 2 years apart and we had a heck of a time finding a double stroller among other things
Or in a five-seater car or crossover. It’s ridiculous. Carseats and boosters are massive, even the ones with the smallest bases. Then after that you need space for sports equipment, musical instruments, other friends, etc. I’m not sure what the solution is here, other than acknowledging that for a few years in a family’s life they’re going to need a bigger vehicle, and it would be great if manufacturers offered a hybrid or EV solution for them, too.
Mazda is finally coming out with a PHEV three row next year, starting around $55k. Not sure who else, besides Rivian with their new fully EV three row at $75k+, which is completely unaffordable for most families.
There were two hybrid minivans on the market a couple years ago when I went shopping for one. One plug-in from Chrysler and a non-plug-in from Toyota. Both cost about as much as a Model 3.
Safety and reliability are two of the biggest factors in family cars. You would think they would want to make larger family vehicles with those selling points.
I just looked it up and the only minivan EV is 114k…
Yeah and that is part of my point on being pro-Chinese EV… Not only affordability, but the fact that there is simply no choices for certain segments. Our automakers are so conglomerated that there is very minuscule choice in EV since each puts out maybe 2 or 3 models.
There is also proof that competition is causing local builders to step up… With Citroen offering the ec3 with LFP, and 200 miles of range for $20k… Meanwhile Stelantis is releasing absolute trash in the US because they can get away with it.
You can get a Pacifica PHEV with a whole 40 miles of electric range… that is like your one choice… Though the Canoo could meet that need if it ever comes to market.
There is a similar issue for cargo vans the US has like 3 choices for electric… Meanwhile even European buyers have far more choice.
I did, I tried to fit my seats in one actually. Before making a snarky comment, you should do your research and know that not all car seats conform to a size. Some are bigger than others and the front seats cannot touch the car seat in a rear facing configuration. I’m tall enough there was no way I could drive the car.
They also can’t touch side to side. I think you must just not know a lot about the safety requirements of car seats. All EVs were typically very narrow too.
It is, but as the article mentions some manufacturers are making a loss of 35k per car.
If those cars are then sold for 5k less than the US/EU/Japanese equivalent, despite lower wages and environmental standards, you have to ask yourself questions.
Yes you just described the business model. Everyone from Walmart to Amazon to Uber uses it. They take a loss in the short term, relying on new investor money or other products.
No reason why western countries also can’t subsidize EV car companies to remain competitive.
Like…what are we supposed to do? Be content with ridiculously priced EVs and be willing to pay a small fortune for them? Fuck off with that noise.
Western corporations have had no problems fucking over the average consumer for decades or laying off thousands of employees at the first sign of trouble. Let them adapt or die I say. Competition is always good. Western corporations have the smarts and the resources to compete, they just need to be forced to.
That‘s a terrible idea. Just because China throws irresponsible amounts of cash at cars doesn‘t mean we have to do the same mistake. We can simply say it‘s not OK to sell products under manufacturing costs to gain market share and that‘s that. Let‘s not inflate the already oversized car market even more.
I agree it’s a bad first step. I’d keep trying idea on the table, but I’d start by working with the European car manufacturers to create huge tariffs on those cars. Make it impossible for them to be sold at those prices in Western markets
They can simply say they don’t subsidize their manufacturing and operate profitably at those prices.
Just saying something doesn’t make it work unless there are legal things that back up the position. And in foreign trade, that means tariffs… which economists have been screaming about (for decades) having negative ramifications that ripple through the economy.
Controversial take: the problem isn't car prices. They haven't increased that much when compared to inflation, and you're getting far more and far better cars for your money when adjusted for inflation.
The problem is wages haven't risen and housing prices have risen too much, meaning people have less to spend on a car.
E: I googled. In the US the cost of a median house was 18k in 1953. An average car cost 3.5k.
Now, the median house costs 400k.
400k/18k x 3.5k = If car prices had risen as much as house prices, the median car would cost 77k.
Yes… cars now are faster, safer, and more efficient than they were in the 50s.
Even if you discount all the “features” they’ve added the bare necessities of a car are tons better than mid-20th century cars or even late 20th century cars
A lot of western countries are subsidizing EV sales. Most western auto companies just waited a decade longer than they should have to start making EVs and are in the thick of developing technology when the early movers are hitting maturity.
On top of subsidies at the national level, most legacy automakers are selling their EVs at a significant loss, but that is because they haven’t reached economies of scale yet… not because they are trying to undercut competition. It’s hard to develop new products and even harder to get them to scale production. Ford has been making cars for 120 years, but that isn’t the same thing as making an EV. They effectively have to start over in a new field… a decade behind companies that invested early.
A lot of the press you hear about EV manufacturers cutting back because demand is low has to do with them cutting back because they are losing $50-70k per vehicle they are selling and can’t stomach the losses. The demand is there, they just can’t make an EV at a price that generates profit. They trim commissions at dealerships to try to help defray cost, but that minimizes incentive for sales teams to try to move them and exacerbates the problem. On top of that, their ICE sales are diminished due to high interest rates and an overall market slowdown in large purchases so every vehicle they sell at a loss hurts the bottom line that much more.
They’re trying to wait to push the cost involved in getting to scale until interest rates go down and it’s more affordable to invest in new technology. They are fucked. Tesla is currently the only American company that is profitable at scale and Elon can’t shut the fuck up on eX-Twitter long enough to stop pissing off the marketplace. The table is set for Chinese EVs to flood the US market, but I don’t think people will be as open to Chinese vehicles with the current data privacy issues and the tense geo-political position between the US and China.
I’m thinking that, if it gets bad enough, the federal government will disincentivize Chinese EVs with tariffs to offset the Chinese gov’t subsidies… if the current US EV tax incentives don’t do enough to spur legacy automakers to kick it into high gear… which it doesn’t seem to be doing. It’s going to be a rough decade for legacy automakers.
Yep. They‘re doing exactly what we usually call hostile underbidding to heavily inflate prices later when they‘re a top dog. A practice that is not quite legal in most parts of the west. And whoever wants to know when things still don‘t work out for the car maker because subsidies dry up: Search for Chinese manufacturer ‚Weltmeister‘. That will make you think thrice about ever coming near a Chinese EV.
The kind of thing usually results in a trade war, sanctions and tariffs.
The problem in Europe, is that our manufacturers are so reliant on Chinese parts and manufacturing, that they've asked our government NOT to intervene. China has them by the nuts, because they've outsourced too much. IRC they can't even make batteries without using Chinese parts.
While that is part of it, the other, bigger part is that Western countries actually do have higher labour costs: better salaries and conditions for our workers.
When China was outcompeting us on undesirable, low productivity, jobs, we accepted that. It was better to raise a billion Chinese out of poverty than to protect our lowest productivity factory workers. And those workers mostly transitioned to other jobs with higher productivity.
But now China is richer and their labour force is shrinking, so they will compete with highly productive factory jobs.
Politically, it is unlikely that car workers will accept unemployment. Nor will other highly paid workers.
So a trade war is brewing, you better brace yourself for it.
Don’t think labor costs is a big factor. Car production is the sector that is most automated. Just think of this endless bands of hanging cars with robot arms working on it. Tesla even topped this.
It’s mainly the unwillingness to design and sell cheap cars due to less profits. In Germany we had electric cars for 20k€ or even combustion cars under 15k€. But they stopped building it. Although it was sold out in weeks.
In my region there was a Startup by the Aachen University RWTH (which is an elite university in Germany) bulding small EVs for around 20k€. They simply bought all parts from suppliers and just assembled it. And engineered and designed it first. Unionized and still competitive. Unfortunately, they didn’t fly.
EV building is rather simple. The software is key. And this is the missing part at car makers capabilities.
I second your thoughts on trade war. However, I guess it will be much simpler with high taxes, high quality regulations, and may be less support by car workshops. We will see…
There is still a shit ton of people working in a car factory. Tesla had to scale back their amount of robot workers since humans could work much faster. Tesla expects to have 60,000 people working in their Gigafactory in Texas when the production of the Cybertruck ramps up.
China wasn’t “outcompeting us on undesirable, low productivity, jobs”. Corporations were shipping jobs to China to undercut highly productive factory jobs back then, too, so they could save on labor costs. It’s only now that China is undercutting corporate profits that these same corporations come crying and shitting their pants. That’s also why you see a ramping up of negative media pieces on China. It was never about charitably raising people out of poverty. It was always about corporations undercutting labor to gain greater profits. Fuck 'em, bring on the cheap cars.
I hate it when corpos use the “oh we can’t lower prices because our staff is getting paid too much”-narrative. What about the CEO who takes half the profits for himself?
It’s the workers who create value for a company, they don’t take it away by getting paid for their work.
A corporation might have 10 C-level guys dividing $50 million amongst themselves and 10.000 workers earning $70K, which costs about $100K due to overheads (health insurance, retirement, etc). Together, that’s a billion, which is 20x more than the C level guys.
The C level guys aren’t the big expense, not by a long shot.
Labour, government and shareholders divide most of the earnings amongst themselves.
For the record, I do think we need to tax the wealthy more and the workers less.
Without the workers there’s no product, no income. The C-suite is dispensable. The workers aren’t.
Besides, worker productivity has been skyrocketing for the last 50 years, as has cost of living, but worker wages have been stagnant. C-suite pay has kept up with the increase in productivity, though, if not outpaced it.
Saying that the C-suite are paid too much compared to workers isn’t contradicting that greedflation is the main reason for higher prices. The two are in no way mutually exclusive.
I’m not downvoting you for responding. I’m downvoting you for spreading commonly believed pro-corporate apologia.
Making toys and other plastic shit was never a high paying job in the West.
And no, it wasn’t charity, it was a win-win that increased living standards on both sides.
But it did have an impact on low paying manufacturing jobs in the West and that impact was accepted by Labour unions for the two reasons I gave: we (rightfully) concluded there were enough other, better jobs available and didn’t want to keep Chinese workers poor.
The “good for people” argument (which has been misportrayed here as “charity”) was made by politicians to justify tearing down the trade barriers that allowed wealthiest countries such as the US to be a higher-income bubble.
Once those trade barriers were down, all those jobs which had no other price protections than said trade barriers (jobs like, for example, assembly workers, but not things like Legal professions specialized in a country’s Law and which require registering with a local Law Society to practice) were suddenly competing with similar people all over the World, and a lot of countries in the World are full of people who would sell their work in those areas much cheaper than equivalent workers in high-income nations.
The people it was good for were people in those “open to competition” occupations in Low Income but reasonably safe countries like China (whose income went up as manufacturing moved there) and the people who owned the means of production (who got higher dividends due to the higher profits being made by paying low-income country manpower costs and receiving high-income country prices for products and services) but nobody else as even the eventual fall in prices that occurred (over the years, as all those companies with China costs started competing on price because they could thanks to the bigger profit margins due to much lower manpower costs) was not enough to make up for the faster and deeper downwards pressure on salaries in high-income countries that happenned due to said manpower competition with workers in countries with much cheaper salaries (for example, in the mid-70s about 23% of corporate revenue in American went to salaries, whilst by 2012 it was down to 7%).
Heres the problem with the talking point of needing to bring manufacturing jobs back: we can’t fill the manufacturing jobs that we have
I work for a company that sells services to warehouses and industrial facilities. We can’t fully staff our locations, we can’t keep most of the people we hire and neither can our customers, and it comes down to the fact that the jobs absolutely suck. Who wants to work in a loud, poorly temperature controlled factory with heavy equipment and a high risk of injury while doing backbreaking work when you could work at a store or resteraunt for not much less and put far less risk to your life, limb and sanity? Bring the automation on, these jobs need to become a thing of the past.
Sounds like the one thing you’re not mentioning - pay - is probably shit.
If the salary offered was enough for a whole family of 5 to live of it, including a good house and a car, like in the old days, I bet you would have trouble keeping candidates away.
The “people don’t want to work nowadays” arguments invariably forget to include the little detail that even a “competitive” salary in industry today is in real terms (of what it actually buys) nowhere as much as it was 50 years ago.
Industrial job salaries relative to cost of living are still way less than back in the 60s. Even the “best paying work” in that domain still pays comparativelly crap given the real cost of living in the US in the present day. My point is that there has been a sistemic fall - across the board - in pay for all such jobs when compared with cost of living, and that’s due to Globalization.
Office work in open-office or even cubicle environments isn’t really better (at many levels) than factory work, and in some countries that kind of work tends to slip into personal time (such as getting calls about work when at home in the evening and weekends) - the kind of harm suffered by employees is different, not less, so people end up having strokes, hearth attacks or simply die from overwork (the latter more of a Japanese phenomenon) rather than the more physical kind of accident or consequences of physical overwork. Office work does, however, tend to pay more than factory work, so lots of people invest in higher education to work in an office doing mindless work and they’re not going to apply for factory work.
Whilst office work pay has also been falling in the last decade or so, and now is actually not that much more than pay in a good industrial job, those people who invested in higher education are highly unlikely to admit to themselves their degree is worthless (and hence their time and money was wasted) and hence are unlikely to apply for the kind of work that doesn’t require a degree even though sometimes they would be better of doing it, plus still now at least theoretically there are more opportunities for promotion and income growth in a shit office job than a well paid industrial job.
Manufacturing and union membership took such massive hits in the US over that period of time. It was win-win for the corporations who greatly expanded profit margins, and the Chinese government, who were happy to use their citizens as sweatshop labor to get ahead. You lived through the propaganda at the time and decided to accept it as the truth.
Add comment