EVs

[r0tor]

It is positive that you can build an EV that isn't soul draining... and at a decent price

[veeman]

I think Biden has recently imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese EV cars. I am sure Trump, if he becomes the POTUS again, will increase it further. I doubt there will be any significant incursion of Chinese EV, outside of already existing Volvo and Polestar which are sorta Chinese, on U.S. soil. I predict they will be novelty sightings in the U.S. for the next few decades at least.

If the Chinese were allowed to put an EV car for sale in the U.S. which undercut the Tesla Model 3 (which currently starts at $38990) it could potentially be disastrous for U.S. automakers.

This is not a purely generalized economic policy decision. It has very significant social and political implications. The number one "threat" for the U.S. on the world stage is China both economically and militarily. No other country is close to second. They are gunning for a take over of Taiwan and hence the urgent need and massive spending (both public and private sector) to start building advanced computer chips on U.S. soil which are currently mostly made in Taiwan. 

The U.S. holds immense pride in it's car culture and there is a massive number of jobs tied to U.S. auto manufacturer success. One of the main reasons the Japanese and Koreans have been able to make in roads is because they have built auto plants on U.S. soil thereby providing American jobs. Japan and South Korea are strong American allies and America provides for a large part of their military protection. China is not an American ally.   

I doubt Chinese companies would be allowed to start making massive auto plants on U.S. soil.  As it is we currently shoot down Chinese spy ballon drone incursions over U.S. soil. Putting a big auto plant in Mexico is probably their game plan but large, and I predict down the road even larger, tariffs will prevent any significant incursion. 

[GoCougs]

As is always the case, tariffs are a terrible idea, and it will hurt the US in the long run.

Owing to this last round of strikes and nonviability of EVs as a business, the end of the US auto industry is cemented irregardless.

[r0tor]

Trumps renegotiated NAFTA deal sealed the deal for a Chinese EV invasion from Mexico and the death of the American auto industry.

Only American car buyers can stop it but not buying cheap shit... which means they won't

[AutobahnSHO]

China is in a unique position- they've done a good job on grabbing all the technological advancement already out there, using their massive amount of people, and the willing consumers all across the globe.

I wonder if they will have any sort of worker revolution in the next decades- but their very effective censorship of outside influences has been pretty impressive.....

[Morris Minor]

As is always the case, tariffs are a terrible idea, and it will hurt the US in the long run.

Owing to this last round of strikes and nonviability of EVs as a business, the end of the US auto industry is cemented irregardless.

Senator Joe Biden ripped President Trump a new one when he imposed tariffs on China. Now President Biden has flipped and doubled down... with a bunch of guys in union shirts standing over him.

Tariffs are the mark of a knuckle-dragger: highly inflationary and highly conducive to economic contraction & unemployment. This is freshman macro Econ 101 stuff.

[r0tor]

Tariffs when used correctly can end the constant search for the lowest common denominator - which does neither humans nor the planet any good.

They however need to be done with carefully selected benchmarks aimed at improving working and environmental conditions... Not just some broad tariff based on country like Trumpity Dumpity liked to impose.

[AutobahnSHO]

The problem is that economics and macro stuff is very often counter-intuitive to the not as smart folks.

"ChInA cArS aRe ToO cHeAp! TaRiFf ThEm!"  is a fairly common thought. But those folks don't look at the 2nd and 3rd order effects.

For example, the disappearance of cheap small pickups in the US of A getting people addicted to giant gas guzzlers.

[FoMoJo]

Senator Joe Biden ripped President Trump a new one when he imposed tariffs on China. Now President Biden has flipped and doubled down... with a bunch of guys in union shirts standing over him.

Tariffs are the mark of a knuckle-dragger: highly inflationary and highly conducive to economic contraction & unemployment. This is freshman macro Econ 101 stuff.

Throughout the 20th century the working classes/middle classes in the Western nations have achieved a living standard unprecedented in all of history.  This is directly because of unions; specifically labour unions.  What they had achieved through bargaining, wage increases, working conditions, etc. proliferated into all aspects of the working forces, office workers, services, et al.  This has not happened in many/most of the Eastern and South Asian countries, with the exception of a very few.  Labour forces in many of those nations are little more than slave labour employing children even with working conditions that are hazardous and wages that barely provide sustenance.

Certainly there is an imbalance, middle class workers earning enough for a comfortable lifestyle and even able to buy products manufactured in their own countries or workers slaving in unsafe conditions and barely able to provide the very basic needs for themselves.  Of course the products they manufacture, be it socks or tools or cars, cost less in the Western world and the profits margins for the owners, be it the state or foreign owners is likely much higher, and the quality is, no doubt, questionable.

The question is, do you let these cheap, poorly made products into your country to be gobbled up by the general population?  Who doesn't like cheap, even though it breaks?  Or do you impose a tariff on these cheap products so that the public will be more inclined to buy products made at home, that don't break, as easily?

[Morris Minor]

The problem is that economics and macro stuff is very often counter-intuitive to the not as smart folks.

"ChInA cArS aRe ToO cHeAp! TaRiFf ThEm!"  is a fairly common thought. But those folks don't look at the 2nd and 3rd order effects.

For example, the disappearance of cheap small pickups in the US of A getting people addicted to giant gas guzzlers.

Yup - the unions want us to keeep driving Suburbans, like the grooms and stable boys wanted us to stick with riding horses 120 years ago.
It's all they know.

[r0tor]

Yup - the unions want us to keeep driving Suburbans, like the grooms and stable boys wanted us to stick with riding horses 120 years ago.
It's all they know.

Unions, or the management of the Big 3?  Unions didn't end production of all passenger cars outside of the Mustang at Ford.

[FoMoJo]

The problem is that economics and macro stuff is very often counter-intuitive to the not as smart folks.

"ChInA cArS aRe ToO cHeAp! TaRiFf ThEm!"  is a fairly common thought. But those folks don't look at the 2nd and 3rd order effects.

For example, the disappearance of cheap small pickups in the US of A getting people addicted to giant gas guzzlers.

I doubt that the common folk are in favour of tariffs.  They'd sooner pay less for giant gas guzzlers no matter where the come from, even if it meant that half of the workers in their own countries were out of a job.

[SJ_GTI]

I mean, I am also generally against tariffs and in favor of free trade, but China never had free trade with anyone. They always required non-Chinese car companies to do joint ventures with local companies, and then those local companies could go make their own cars separately at the same time. Now of course China is dominated by local companies.

I would certainly be against such tariffs on European, Korean, or Japanese cars (or Australian or even Vietnamese) but offering a barrier free market for cars built in China should have always been a non-starter. Its not about competition...competition from foreign companies is perfectly fine (hell I drive two German cars)...but China is not competing on a level playing field.

And to be fair I am not an expert on all this stuff...the above is just based on general knowledge and news coverage.

[AutobahnSHO]

Throughout the 20th century the working classes/middle classes in the Western nations have achieved a living standard unprecedented in all of history.  This is directly because of unions; specifically labour unions.

NO.

This was specifically and directly because the rest of the world was engaged in war in the 1940s and we (US & Canada) literally were the only factories left standing. The US then lent or gave money to the rest of the world to buy our stuff- and so we made lots and lots of stuff and sold it while the rest of the world rebuilt (or started building in China's case.

The innovation and technology which leapt ahead in the US while the rest of the "civilized" world was in rubble is pretty imbalanced.

[AutobahnSHO]

I doubt that the common folk are in favour of tariffs.  They'd sooner pay less for giant gas guzzlers no matter where the come from, even if it meant that half of the workers in their own countries were out of a job.

Less educated people LOVE tariffs. "It's unfair" is one of their rallying cries.

Why does anyone think MB and BMW are "luxury" cars? Because tariffs made them more expensive- and those companies long before they started manufacturing in the US had to then sell a better vehicle to make the price point worth it.

In Germany, BMW were police cars and available with no creature comforts, MB taxis and the same (until more recently).

[AutobahnSHO]

I mean, I am also generally against tariffs and in favor of free trade, but China never had free trade with anyone. ...
I would certainly be against such tariffs on European, Korean, or Japanese cars (or Australian or even Vietnamese) but offering a barrier free market for cars built in China should have always been a non-starter. Its not about competition...competition from foreign companies is perfectly fine (hell I drive two German cars)...but China is not competing on a level playing field.

+1

Tariffs are really a political tool as much as an economic one. A future where China and Chinese thinking dominates  the world is scary.

[AutobahnSHO]

Unions, or the management of the Big 3?  Unions didn't end production of all passenger cars outside of the Mustang at Ford.

Much of the big 3 management is based around the Unions and what the Unions do or dont' want, and how they will or won't react.

It costs those union factories more to transition to a different product than a non-union plant.

[giant_mtb]

Tariffs are just self-imposed economic sanctions.

[FoMoJo]

NO.

This was specifically and directly because the rest of the world was engaged in war in the 1940s and we (US & Canada) literally were the only factories left standing. The US then lent or gave money to the rest of the world to buy our stuff- and so we made lots and lots of stuff and sold it while the rest of the world rebuilt (or started building in China's case.

The innovation and technology which leapt ahead in the US while the rest of the "civilized" world was in rubble is pretty imbalanced.

That's a different scenario.  After the 2nd war conditions catapulted NA industry for the reasons you stated. 

In the early part of the century workers for companies like Ford were living in tenement houses provided by the manufacturer and not able to purchase the product they were building.  Prior to then, throughout the 18th and 19th century, manufacturers employed child labour where they could.  Unions existed in some form, but obviously not very effectively.

During the 1st war even, unions made some progress because of the demand for manufactured war products, but afterward when demand subsided, there was less bargaining power, but by then companies like Ford were offering better wages in order to reduce the appeal of unions; along with bludgeoning those still trying to form unions.  Of course the depression of the early 1930s up until the 2nd war pretty much killed a lot of manufacturing along with jobs so there was no point in actively trying to unionize much of the work force.

Unions only started to become more effective in the 1940s because of the demand, once again, for war products and, of course, afterwards in NA because of the conditions you mentioned.  The 1950's and 1960's were the prime eras for union growth, but then they got too greedy and manufacturers started looking for alternative labour sources.

This is my understanding in a nutshell but, as someone who was just getting into the job market in 1960, a union shop like GM or Ford, even Chrysler, looked very appealing...but I never did join up.   However, even though I worked in a non-union job, every time the union workers at GM, Ford or Chrysler got a new deal with a big pay increase, I did too; just to keep up with inflation.

[r0tor]

NO.

This was specifically and directly because the rest of the world was engaged in war in the 1940s and we (US & Canada) literally were the only factories left standing. The US then lent or gave money to the rest of the world to buy our stuff- and so we made lots and lots of stuff and sold it while the rest of the world rebuilt (or started building in China's case.

The innovation and technology which leapt ahead in the US while the rest of the "civilized" world was in rubble is pretty imbalanced.

We would still be working 70-80 hours work weeks without unions

[FoMoJo]

I mean, I am also generally against tariffs and in favor of free trade, but China never had free trade with anyone. They always required non-Chinese car companies to do joint ventures with local companies, and then those local companies could go make their own cars separately at the same time. Now of course China is dominated by local companies.

I would certainly be against such tariffs on European, Korean, or Japanese cars (or Australian or even Vietnamese) but offering a barrier free market for cars built in China should have always been a non-starter. Its not about competition...competition from foreign companies is perfectly fine (hell I drive two German cars)...but China is not competing on a level playing field.

And to be fair I am not an expert on all this stuff...the above is just based on general knowledge and news coverage.

I believe this is a fair assessment. 

As for not being an expert, that does not disqualify you from having an informed opinion.  Anyways, experts are overrated.  They tend to disagree with one-another more than they agree and, in the end, they are usually proven wrong.

[GoCougs]

Unions, or the management of the Big 3?  Unions didn't end production of all passenger cars outside of the Mustang at Ford.

Sure the UAW killed the domestic car - margins were slim to none because the labor costs were too high. Same is happening with EVs. Trucks and SUVs afford ginormous margins because MERICA.

[r0tor]

Sure the UAW killed the domestic car - margins were slim to none because the labor costs were too high. Same is happening with EVs. Trucks and SUVs afford ginormous margins because MERICA.

Margins on cars were positive.  Selling $80k trucks was more positive.  They killed cars not because of losing money, but trying to rape the public into submission on higher cost trucks/SUVs.

Pure business decision regardless of unions.

[veeman]

I don't think tariffs, quotas, and minimum prices can be summarily considered bad or good. It's very industry and country specific. The global average tariff on agricultural products, for example, is 62%.

Google the U.S. tariffs, allowable foreign import quotas, and govt set minimum prices on tobacco, meats, dairy, and sugar.

Just as an example on sugar:

 https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-and-sweeteners/policy/#:~:text=The%20out%2Dof%2Dquota%20tariff,quantity%20of%20the%20imported%20sugar.

[FoMoJo]

I would think that the use of the revenue received from tariffs would be a determining factor as to whether it could be considered good or bad.  If the tariffs received from cars made in China, for example, were used towards building better roads rather than given to corporations or tax reductions for the wealthy, then it may be considered in a positive light.

[Morris Minor]

I would think that the use of the revenue received from tariffs would be a determining factor as to whether it could be considered good or bad.  If the tariffs received from cars made in China, for example, were used towards building better roads rather than given to corporations or tax reductions for the wealthy, then it may be considered in a positive light.

There's no revenue from Biden's 102% tariff on cars imported from China, because the imports won't occur. His move was symbolic/substance-free anyway because Trump already had a 25% tariff in place.

 

[MrH]

I took a deeper look at my electricity bill.  Previously, I just used my $ spent per month, divided by the total kWh to figure out cost/kWh it was around $.16/kWh.  Turns out, $100/month of it is just the fixed delivery charges, regardless of consumption.  It's really only $.069/kWh for actual usage.

My daily work commute of 75 miles round trip:

Lightning (2.0 mi/kWh) = $2.58/day
BRZ (25 mpg, $4.40/gal for 93) = $13.23/day

$10+/day difference.

[GoCougs]

What's the estimated depreciation differential though? EVs in general are falling off a cliff - way more than ~$11/day.

[AutobahnSHO]

$10+/day difference.

That adds up for sure!

I commute 40miles/day , right now costs $5.28/ day to commute. I could drop that to $3.30 (one gallon of gas) if I drove Maverick, but then wife's expenditure would go up sharply. 

[CaminoRacer]

What's the estimated depreciation differential though? EVs in general are falling off a cliff - way more than ~$11/day.

With tax credits and incentives, usually the depreciation is normal for the vehicle's class. (Excluding Tesla, which is all over the place depending on Elon's mood)