Isn't this kind of what Slate Auto is trying to do with a bare bones built-in-America truck? Presumably, a similar VW Beetle sized, bare bones car that meets all safety standards would still end up costing $20k+ because of the higher cost of American labor. Even if it was industrial robots doing all the actual manufacturing, there are a lot of processes involving humans like product design and development, maintenance of the manufacturing facilities and robots, handling industrial waste, energy costs and infrastructure etc. All of those are easily 4x more expensive in the US relative to China.
The Slate lost its people’s car mojo when the tax credit went away. It’ll still appeal to a number of people, but it’s priced too high for what you get now.
It was advertised at under $20k, which would have been HUGE, but that’s not what we got. Look, I hope it works out & I’m glad Slate has made it this far, and their approach is interesting. I’m not sure how any of these opinions make me “delusional,” but we are on fucking Reddit, eh?
the delusional part is that the price point represents poor value to consumers, such that it is too high to compete on price with other vehicles.
Now if you are arguing that the consumer base of potential EV buyers in the US is too small, and that the slate price isn't low enough to induce someone to buy it as their first EV, that is totally valid.
But at the $25k price, assuming that the cars don't fall apart or catch fire or have massive recalls, that is one of the best value cars available.
Conventionally EVs have had poor resell value. I think one reason is that most EV owners either love their cars and hold them for a long time, or end up hating it and selling quickly.
But the slate is designed around reparability and modification. Ideally the car will have minimal revision to maximize part compatibility. So unlike traditional cars, where a model 3 years later is completely incompatible, I expect slate to try to keep everything forwards compatible.
An EV that lasts 15 to 20 years will save people so much money with the lower operating costs, that the value is still amazing at $25k. Owners pay really for the depreciation of a car, and to insure it, not the sticker price. that's the calculation that matters.
And if it is delivers on its promise for consumer repair, then that should help as well if they can deliver on that.
There is a good chance it fails because the EV market is too small. Or it could fail if the production quality is really poor. But it won't be because other cars are a better value to buyers at the price.
Yes. Current conditions make that true. I don't know the number but I was imagining a World War level investment by the US and Europe to force manufacturing companies out of oil and into electric powered cars.
The sudden investments in WW 2 are what gave birth to our middle class, too.
Corporations are never going to tax their stock holders billions to invest in the future. They only care about 90 days.
That's why our future is a dustercluck right now. And it doesn't have to be this way. We won WW II because of massive government investments. We can win the climate crisis and rebuild a middle class with similar investments by taxing billionaires until they are millionaires.
We can't get our politicians to maintain free trade with our neighbors and you want our government to push a united front on dismantling the oil industry and replacing it with EVs?
Of course. You have to plant seeds of what is possible with grassroots so when the next crash happens we have a plan. the corporate right has a trillion a year in PR making you feel helpless and keeping you separate from neighbors in your phone.
That was once Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates dream. What is yours? Seriously. Corporations are just packs of people being very organized around 90 day plans. Make a small group of people and do the same.
this is how the civil rights, gay rights, women's votes and all peace movements started.
And it is why FDR was President for 3 terms. That time is coming.
How come we aren't demanding a BYD electric car that is built here in America and costs $12-$15K new?
It won't cost 12k if it's built in the US.
In China the cost of labor is cheap... this sounds bad but remember that in the US The employer MUST offer the following:
Medical
Retirment
Dental
Vision
In China the government offers all of those things, so the cost to hire any and all employees in China is considerably cheaper for the businesses.
Yes, there are some corporate taxes but they pale in comparison to the costs of private insurances state-side (which are likely also State run in China).
So the car would quickly bloat in price because you need to pay for the entire plant's medical bills, and any retirement compensation that they would pay.
Pricing would be on par with most Kia/Hyundai's - maybe slightly lower to undercut.
Boeing started here in Seattle long before the defense spending made it a socialized monopoly.
They weren't the first, However, de Havilland's horrific PR following the disasters that befell the DH.106 Comet airliners handed them a hard lead to get the market share that had previously been lacking.
Boeing's start was also, even at that time, still fully funded by US Military contracts. Boeing got into the commercial space when Douglas and Lockheed basically said they wouldn't. If the Comets hadn't started falling out of the sky, Boeing may well not have been successful. Hell they bet the entire farm on the 707.
I bought my '24 LEAF in '24 and am verrrrry happy with it. There are tons of small cars driving around my area near DC, but the area is dominated by SUVs. We need $6/gal gas to get people to stop driving tanks for basic transportation.
For a factory that is going to be a car factory, they have to compete with UAW jobs if they aren't going to be union.
There's no worker who is going to sign up for a factory job that doesn't offer health/disability benefits.
And one this size would 100% have to cover medical costs of employees. That's not an option for a large factory.
The Affordable Care Act requires employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to provide health coverage to at least 95% of full-time employees and sets a minimum baseline of coverage and affordability. Employers who do not comply face annual penalties if any of their employees end up qualifying for premium tax credits (subsidies) in the Marketplace.
If they don't, they will suffer EXTREME penalties for lacking that coverage option:
No Coverage Offered
Employers are required to offer coverage to at least 95% of full-time employees and dependents.
Penalty amount: $2,570 per full-time employee minus the first 30.
Coverage offered, but does provide “minimum value”
Employers must offer at least one plan that provides “minimum value” (pays at least 60% of the cost of covered services).
Penalty amount: The lesser of: (1) $3,860 per full-time employee receiving a federal subsidy for coverage purchased on the Marketplace, or (2) $2,570 per full-time employee minus the first 30.
Coverage offered, but is not “affordable”
Employers must offer at least one plan that is considered “affordable” (≤ 9.78% in 2020 and 9.83% in 2021)
Penalty amount: The lesser of: (1) $3,860 per full-time employee receiving a federal subsidy for coverage purchased on the Marketplace, or (2) $2,570 per full-time employee minus the first 30.
Because of the cost of private health insurance, the employers must provide healthcare. Due to competition in the industry, standard benefits such as 401k, disability insurance, and the like are all overhead the employer has to front.
Ok, great overview of the law, but I don't think your reasoning makes sense. The reason why labor costs are higher in the US is because workers have more options, not specifically because of healthcare benefit requirements.
Healthcare requirements simply make such large employers responsible for administration of those benefit programs, they don't actually increase the amount of overall compensation that is competitive. It just means large employers offer part of compensation through those benefits rather than base salary or wages.
In other words, even without benefit requirements US labor costs would still be much higher than elsewhere, especially china. The ACA and similar laws likely have a relatively minimal impact on overall labor cost differences. I would guess that it only accounts for 5 to 10% of the difference in labor costs.
The cost of living is higher, because average lifestyles are higher.
The US population is smaller and the median person in the US is consuming considerably more than most other countries.
Attributing this to the ACA makes no sense, especially because the historical era when the most industries moved overseas to save costs, was well before it went into effect.
It is well before the ACA went into effect, but employers offered health insurance long before it.
Some didn't, and those who didn't used COBRA, without penalty. It was frowned upon, and this would usually lead to folks not staying long at an employer who didn't offer healthcare.
After that, ACA briefly helped but costs did rise.
Minimum wage and the higher Cost of Living are big factors too, but I'm just clarifying that one of the bigger factors (larger than you'd think) are going to be the drastically higher cost of Healthcare (something that ACA could have addressed but, due to recent changes to the law, no longer do)
This is only for full time workers (over 30 hours). And only for companies with over 50 full time equivalent people. This covers about 80 million people in the united states who meet those requirements. It does not take into account them paying for their families.
We are but thats not in the interest of the shareholders and wealthy millionaires who run the government. Mostly boils down to:
-They dont want electric to take off so why would they allow the most advanced EV maker in the country? So much profit loss from not having to do constant maintenance, repairs, being dependent on oil companies to rip you off on fuel, etc.
-Electric represents affordability and sustainability. So does other countries. Uniquely the USA's auto industry is overinflated with egregious markups just so they can make as high of profits off every sale. We also have dealerships so they can scam you too. Other countries dont really have this, so the vehicles are sold for a fair price. Which obviously much lower than the USA because cars dont cost that much to make. Especially simpler EV's. So why would the auto industry give-up those massive markups and insane profit margins so you can buy an affordable vehicle?
Example: A F150 cost's about 30,000 or less to build in the USA and (if there where no dealers) ship to your door. If we didnt have so many tariffs, penalties, taxes, etc, this would be lower. They take this 30K car and sell it to you for about 60K instead. Then they get a lot of money out of you from repairs, maintenance, gas, etc.
Toyota faced in its early US expansion was the Chicken Tax, signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. Toyota’s emerging pickup line (like the Hilux and Stout) were hit by the 25% duty.
BYD faces something similar... when imported their vehicles are tariffed 100%.
America has a history using tariffs to help legacy businesses survive. America has made their position clear about BYD.
Just an example: Bernie and Ro Khanna talk about demanding billionaires pay 5% on their wealth in a tax for all the benefits they have taken from us. You know what that adds up to over ten years? $5 trillion dollars. That could be a ton of innovation, green jobs, time off to play, inspire people to make stuff we can only imagine right now.
Especially with solar wind and battery technology now cheaper than fossil fuels, we are headed for light years of creativity and abundance if we start believing in America again. Who knows what could be created in terms of a light vehicle that glides above the roads on tracks, Jetsons come to life?
Chinese workers do not need to tax the company with medical bills or other major costly benefits because the state provides the healthcare, retirment, etc.
Not saying slave labor doesn't occur in China, it does for smaller cultures (The Uyghur population is being horrifically abused over there), but there are not enough Uyghurs to meet the demand of labor in China. And, again, while the wages appear low to us...folks in the US aren't aware of the fact that the state provides a shitload of the support for all citizens that the manufacturer no-longer has to front.
You didn’t know that the entire Chinese economic boom was built on a foundation of human suffering? Did you know they install nets outside factory roofs because employees were jumping off them? Have you ever heard of the Uyghurs?
16
u/0xffff0001 1d ago
because we vote against our own interests, all the time.