Quote from: AutobahnSHO on May 21, 2024, 03:10:37 PMNO.

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

Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 21, 2024, 04:38:50 PM100% EV adoption will take decades. Even after 100% of new sales are EV-only, there's still millions of gas cars on the road. Plenty of time to beef up power grids.

California, Texas, etc. have power grid issues unrelated to EVs that need to be solved anyway.

100% EV adoption will never happen in our lifetime. Those who want 100% EV do not understand how mining (to make their EVs) works.

100% EV adoption will take decades. Even after 100% of new sales are EV-only, there's still millions of gas cars on the road. Plenty of time to beef up power grids.

California, Texas, etc. have power grid issues unrelated to EVs that need to be solved anyway.

Quote from: Morris Minor on May 21, 2024, 07:20:08 AMBeef it up. Build it out to meet demand.

Tell that to California. The fifth largest economy in the world. That has to ask people to not charge their cars because the grid can't handle it when it's too hot outside.

Takes years and millions and millions (or probably billions if you want to not use fossil fuels) of dollars to do so. And where does that cost go? To the consumer. The majority of which can't afford a reasonable EV to begin with.

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on May 21, 2024, 03:10:37 PMNO.

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.

Tariffs are just self-imposed economic sanctions.

Quote from: r0tor on May 21, 2024, 01:16:37 PMUnions, 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.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 21, 2024, 02:30:01 PMI 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.

Quote from: FoMoJo on May 21, 2024, 02:14:36 PMI 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).

Quote from: FoMoJo on May 21, 2024, 11:59:08 AMThroughout 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.