Either get the US auto makers on par with value from what's coming out of China or let their vehicles in. There should not be any other option where we plug our ears and leave Ford/GM/Tesla to...
Either get the US auto makers on par with value from what's coming out of China or let their vehicles in. There should not be any other option where we plug our ears and leave Ford/GM/Tesla to twiddle their thumbs.
We'll never match China on price due to unionized, American labor, but we can certainly have better value proposition. I'm okay with us paying more for cars if the price disparity isn't...
We'll never match China on price due to unionized, American labor, but we can certainly have better value proposition. I'm okay with us paying more for cars if the price disparity isn't astronomical and it protects the industry. However, no one I know wants to buy an American car because the reliability isn't there. There's not a single American brand in the top 10 of Consumer Reports's reliability rankings. Unions fought for decades to get fair compensation for workers and I'm not advocating for that to go away at all, but there's nothing that says they can't make more reliable cars, even if the price is a bit higher than foreign cars.
American autoworkers union believes installing seats in a car or snapping on a front grille is worth $30/hr. After watching numerous assembly line videos, I have to wonder how a job that you can...
American autoworkers union believes installing seats in a car or snapping on a front grille is worth $30/hr. After watching numerous assembly line videos, I have to wonder how a job that you can learn in an hour is worth that much? Its not skilled labor, you are simply a droid doing simple, repetitive work.
If a Chinese worker is willing to do the same thing for $10/hr, American makers don't stand a chance.
Given that minimum wage in half the states is over $10/hr, that seems like a foregone conclusion. And Idk, 30/hr seems fair? I'm in a high COL area so $30 isn't taking you that far to begin with.
Given that minimum wage in half the states is over $10/hr, that seems like a foregone conclusion.
And Idk, 30/hr seems fair? I'm in a high COL area so $30 isn't taking you that far to begin with.
I wonder why all the people who insist auto workers are overpaid for labor you can learn in an hour don't just switch to working as auto workers, then. Surely there can't be other downsides or...
I wonder why all the people who insist auto workers are overpaid for labor you can learn in an hour don't just switch to working as auto workers, then. Surely there can't be other downsides or complications related to that work that make higher compensation more worth it. I find white collar workers who disparage those who do physical or "unskilled" labor as somehow not deserving a fair living for their work absolutely disgusting.
Not to mention comparing it to China, where the cost-of-living and wages in general are significantly lower, without providing context is absurd. The hourly minimum wage in Beijing (where afaik has the highest hourly minimum wage anywhere in China) is 26.4 yuan/hour, which is roughly equivalent to $3.7/hour. California's minimum wage is $16.4/hour. This means that, if indeed Chinese automakers are paying their equivalent workers $10/hour, those workers are making at least 2.7 times the minimum wage (and probably significantly more than that, assuming said automaker is located outside Beijing). An American autoworker making $30/hour is making 1.8 times the minimum wage in California by comparison.
I’m not great at looking things up like this, so take this with a grain of salt, but $30 an hour in 2025 is barely higher (in real terms, i.e. adjusted for inflation) than what they would have...
I’m not great at looking things up like this, so take this with a grain of salt, but $30 an hour in 2025 is barely higher (in real terms, i.e. adjusted for inflation) than what they would have earned in the early 80s for the same kind of job. I don’t think people in the 80s were paid exorbitant salaries, but especially considering the cost of living today, I think that kind of salary doesn’t go as far as it used to.
"Unskilled labor" is a classist myth to justify poverty wages. A few years ago "unskilled labor" were suddenly "essential workers" to make sure the economy didn't completely collapse and the...
"Unskilled labor" is a classist myth to justify poverty wages. A few years ago "unskilled labor" were suddenly "essential workers" to make sure the economy didn't completely collapse and the moneyed interests didn't have to risk getting COVID by going out to get their own groceries.
The only actual unskilled labor I've ever witnessed is landlords and using the word "labor" is a stretch since there's nothing actually being done or produced. Well, maybe landlords and car salespeople.
I'd prefer "common skills" versus "scarce skills". Tradespeople command premium pay because there's high demand and few who have the combination of training and experience necessary to perform...
I'd prefer "common skills" versus "scarce skills". Tradespeople command premium pay because there's high demand and few who have the combination of training and experience necessary to perform adequate quality work. Same with professions that require years of formal qualifications, certifications, licenses, and practical experience.
It's not that people who work in low-wage jobs are "unskilled", it's that they have skills perceived as generally available, with minimal experience required to apply them at sufficient levels of performance. [I don't know anyone who works in child or assistive care, retail, fast food, landscaping, and warehouse jobs who's "unskilled" or getting the pay they deserve, but these fields are nearly always available to those with minimal formal qualifications.]
The big downside to "common skills" jobs is that there's not much opportunity for recognized skills progression at work. It's not that there's no growth in competency, it's that there's no framework for recognizing and compensating for it. Years of child care, landscaping, retail, driving, or fast food only qualifies you for more of the same, with a nearly flat pay scale. There are very rare management opportunities that scarcely pay more. It's possible to open your own establishment (with lots of self-study on business operations and regulations, and outside investment or loans). Extended warehouse work mostly qualifies you for a permanent disability.
Factory work now requires far more formal qualifications than the Rivethead days where anyone who could swing a tool could get a job.
It usually takes at least a couple of years of community college and an apprenticeship in machining, robotics, process control, welding, pipefitting, electronics, or other near-trades skills to get an entry-level factory job. And if you're not in a union shop (most auto-adjacent parts factories aren't unionized), you're starting at $15 - $18/hour.
Well, some landlords may be 'unskilled'. I have to be very skilled as I do my own design, building and renovations - have put a full suite in a multiple bare basements and know how to do cabinet...
Well, some landlords may be 'unskilled'. I have to be very skilled as I do my own design, building and renovations - have put a full suite in a multiple bare basements and know how to do cabinet work, electrical, plumbing, flooring, drywalling, painting and finish work to get it completed plus at times roofing, window installation, siding, and appliance repair - so I wont take that personally :)
But Im not sure what's 'classist myth' about saying something is unskilled when it doesnt take much skill to learn it. There's a reason one doesnt make much money mowing lawns compared to a doctor who has spent 12 years in post secondary education. We highly value what is difficult to achieve and hard to replace, yes?
These two links may help explain the problem with "unskilled" labour: https://waytoocomplicated.substack.com/p/unskilled-labor-is-a-myth https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unskilled-labor.asp
These two links may help explain the problem with "unskilled" labour:
This may be more of an issue in the US, but here in Canada, minimum wage is more than double that. Most provinces its $15/hr. My one daughter is a house cleaner which is arguably low skill and...
The term "low-skilled" worker is antiquated and not reflective of the present day. Low-wage workers aren't low-skilled workers. They may have plenty of skills but low-wage jobs often don't provide a liveable wage.
This may be more of an issue in the US, but here in Canada, minimum wage is more than double that. Most provinces its $15/hr. My one daughter is a house cleaner which is arguably low skill and charges out at 32/hr but has no problem getting clients. Another daughter is a new doctor and is making over 250k a year so we definitely see the difference in training and skill valued differently.
So the article would prefer 'low skill' to 'unskilled'? Seems like semantics but ok, there's some skill in every job just a lot more required in some than others. Personally I dont think the term affects much, but what's pc is always in flux. The key component is how difficult the job is and how long it takes to learn it and how hard that worker is to replace.
For context Ive been in a decently paid administrative position over 40 staff where I earned a 'professional' income and I've also been a bus driver where I barely made over minimum wage. I know that both jobs had value but one took me 7 years of university to qualify for and the other I was trained in 2 days, so there's no way I expected to be paid anywhere close to the same wage. Driving a bus isn't 'unskilled' but its definitely low skill - I literally drove in a 12 minute circle route for 8 hours a day. Mind numbingly simple.
Interesting. Because in order to become a doctor you have to know the entire body's many systems and how they interact. Ive watched two of my kids become doctors so Ive seen how much study it...
most of the doctors don't do jack squat with their degree and are largely unnecessary.
Interesting. Because in order to become a doctor you have to know the entire body's many systems and how they interact. Ive watched two of my kids become doctors so Ive seen how much study it takes (and tenacity) to make it that far. Not all docs will be equal but Im pretty confident that you cant be completely inept - not only making it through the studies involved but also through all the rotations and internships if you dont have some pretty decent skills.
And no offense to your earlier examples, but Im pretty sure someone could learn both those jobs in a few weeks of training. The have skills sure, but nothing like 12 years of post secondary training so you dont kill a patient at 2 am after working a 30 hr shift which is indeed the torturous path to becoming a doctor. Do I expect my lawn guy to get paid 300k to 500k a year? Nope. But a doc? For sure.
Not OP, but it’s not about effort so much as the rarity of the skill and the net value. If we paid people for effort, then you’d get paid to go the gym. Bodybuilders would be amongst the highest...
Not OP, but it’s not about effort so much as the rarity of the skill and the net value. If we paid people for effort, then you’d get paid to go the gym. Bodybuilders would be amongst the highest paid people.
A doctor isn’t exerting themselves very much when they listen to a patients symptoms and give a diagnosis. But a) the value is high, as that can prevent death and injury, and most people would like not dying b) only a few people exist that can do it, because you have to do many years of med school + residency to get there.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with your assessment of a doctors responsibility would jive with reality, but it’s beyond the point so I won’t dwell with it. The point is that effort isn’t the...
I’m not entirely sure I agree with your assessment of a doctors responsibility would jive with reality, but it’s beyond the point so I won’t dwell with it. The point is that effort isn’t the metric by which we compensate people and it should not be.
Skills which have a high net impact and which are rare are compensated more than skills which are ubiquitous. That should be the case, because it’s an incentive for more people to learn that skill. So yes, the grass mower deserves less pay than the doctor.
Yes. Professional athletes aren't a dime a dozen by definition. There's maybe a couple thousand in each sport that can be said to be "professional". The raw physical talent to be in the top 1000...
Yes. Professional athletes aren't a dime a dozen by definition. There's maybe a couple thousand in each sport that can be said to be "professional". The raw physical talent to be in the top 1000 humans for a given sport is definitely rare. They are really professional entertainers, though, which is what they are paid for. Given how many people love to watch sports, they indeed deserve the millions.
Same for artists; this is ultimately entertainment as well. If a famous artist can entertain millions, while another artist is ignored, then it is what it is.
For one, those numbers are apples and oranges. The viewership of the entirety of a sport and of a single athlete are very different things. Second, they deserve it because they contribute the...
For one, those numbers are apples and oranges. The viewership of the entirety of a sport and of a single athlete are very different things. Second, they deserve it because they contribute the individual viewership of the team.
Curry from the NBA is an excellent example, as he is core to the Warriors going from a poverty franchise no one cared about to being one of the league's biggest fanbases. Players of Curry's caliber can be counted on one hand. He is one of the highest paid athletes in the world, but you'd be crazy to say that he's not worth every penny.
Part of the human condition is to be entertained, and an athlete like Curry can entertain hundreds of millions of people. And not just entertain, but entertain to such a degree that they are willing to exchange a lot of value the audience members have created to watch him.
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But you moved the goalpost. The point is that effort and compensation are not correlated and shouldn’t be correlated. If there existed a hypothetical...
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But you moved the goalpost. The point is that effort and compensation are not correlated and shouldn’t be correlated.
If there existed a hypothetical person who could spawn infinite wheat by doing nothing, then they would be compensated handsomely, because what matters isn’t how much effort (0) they’re putting in, it’s that wheat is valuable because humans require carbs to live and they are the only person who can spawn wheat without farming it. Even though they’re doing nothing.
You can argue that Curry doesn’t put in more effort than YMCA basketball player, which isn’t true but the difference in the effort is not nearly as big as the difference in compensation ($-60 vs $60m). The difference isn’t the effort, but the fact that hundreds of millions of people are entertained by Curry.
That’s separate from an issue of opportunity inequality. People should be given the opportunity to learn valuable skills, sure. That doesn’t change that some skills are more valuable than others, and some are more rare than others. In a world where that rice farmer is also a star basketball player, there are still many many people who have little to no unique skills and will be compensated as such.
You obviously have a high disdain for doctors, but on a practical side, if my lawn guy quit tomorrow, it would take me all of 15 minutes to find a new one. I like what he does, he's a nice guy but...
You obviously have a high disdain for doctors, but on a practical side, if my lawn guy quit tomorrow, it would take me all of 15 minutes to find a new one. I like what he does, he's a nice guy but he's not indispensable. One ad and Id get half a dozen new lawn guys applying.
When my doctor quit tomorrow (like the last one did) it took me over two years to find a new one and get on her patient roster. Do I value her much more highly than my lawn guy? Absolutely. Because she's hard to find and not everyone even has access to a doctor's services. Im glad she's highly paid because I dont want her to leave.
I’m guessing that the difference is supposed to be made up for by: an increased investment in automation, so fewer people can do more work; tariffs on imports to increase the price, incentives to...
I’m guessing that the difference is supposed to be made up for by:
an increased investment in automation, so fewer people can do more work;
tariffs on imports to increase the price,
incentives to companies to stay in the US.
The advantage being that a (dubiously) necessary part of the American economy stays under the control of American interests, which strengthens its position against foreign interference. I guess it also promotes some employment growth.
I wonder what car companies in Japan, South Korea, and Germany will do? It seems like anyone who wants to compete in Europe and Australia (at least) will need to do something.
I wonder what car companies in Japan, South Korea, and Germany will do? It seems like anyone who wants to compete in Europe and Australia (at least) will need to do something.
The best thing to do is to bring back the concept of basic economy cars/trucks that are simple and cheap to build. Cars that aren’t concerned with showing off at all and are made solely to serve...
The best thing to do is to bring back the concept of basic economy cars/trucks that are simple and cheap to build. Cars that aren’t concerned with showing off at all and are made solely to serve the purpose of getting around. Kinda like what Honda Civics and Fits used to be before they succumbed to feature and size creep.
Yeah the margins on those are thin, but people need cars they can afford to buy, and the need is only intensifying with used market prices rising right alongside their new vehicle counterparts.
Earlier today I saw a video about another startup trying to gear up to produce a relatively basic electric truck at a low price. When every car startup is trying to capture the low end, it seems...
Earlier today I saw a video about another startup trying to gear up to produce a relatively basic electric truck at a low price. When every car startup is trying to capture the low end, it seems there’s a problem with the industry.
Any chance it was the Telo truck? I only mention so because it came up in my YouTube recommendations as well. In that case, though, the truck is small but is expected to cost north of 41k USD...
Any chance it was the Telo truck? I only mention so because it came up in my YouTube recommendations as well. In that case, though, the truck is small but is expected to cost north of 41k USD (before incentives).
The margins are thin as you wrote. I may not be right, but auto dealerships make most of their money from financing and repairing cars. EVs, in theory, require less maintenance. No transmissions,...
Yeah the margins on those are thin, but people need cars they can afford to buy, and the need is only intensifying with used market prices rising right alongside their new vehicle counterparts.
The margins are thin as you wrote. I may not be right, but auto dealerships make most of their money from financing and repairing cars. EVs, in theory, require less maintenance. No transmissions, fewer moving parts.
God I wish, dealerships are a plague on the car buying experience, I'm incredibly socially anxious and don't want to play a fucking minigame when I'm buying a car to save potentially thousands of...
God I wish, dealerships are a plague on the car buying experience, I'm incredibly socially anxious and don't want to play a fucking minigame when I'm buying a car to save potentially thousands of dollars.
They really do suck. Back when I leased my current vehicle I had to go out to a dealership a good 40m drive out from where I live because all of the dealerships close by downtown wouldn’t be...
They really do suck. Back when I leased my current vehicle I had to go out to a dealership a good 40m drive out from where I live because all of the dealerships close by downtown wouldn’t be caught dead giving you anything remotely resembling a deal.
The reason there are still laws against it is because car dealerships bribe and bully politicians into keeping it illegal. Car dealership owners have been consolidating power and money for decades...
The reason there are still laws against it is because car dealerships bribe and bully politicians into keeping it illegal. Car dealership owners have been consolidating power and money for decades and the VAST majority of them are HUGE companies that are owned by a very small number of people. In my town there are 8 massive dealerships in a row with different names that are all owned by the same venture capitalist group. It's a cartel that's only purpose is to abuse the consumer and separate them from their money. If there was any redeeming reason for keeping direct to consumer sales illegal it became heavily outweighed by the corrupt awful borderline criminal gang of car dealership owners and more recently the private equity companies that have been devouring them.
People say things like this often and its how we walk off cliffs. Turns out, no matter what rules you make, people will try to maximize and take everything. Just because this is bad now doesn't...
If there was any redeeming reason for keeping direct to consumer sales illegal it became heavily outweighed by the corrupt awful borderline criminal gang of car dealership owners and more recently the private equity companies that have been devouring them.
People say things like this often and its how we walk off cliffs. Turns out, no matter what rules you make, people will try to maximize and take everything. Just because this is bad now doesn't mean the solution is to backtrack to something we knew would be bad back then. There are other options.
The reason dealerships exist is because back in the 1900s, Ford knew he couldn't afford to set up his own shops and mechanics in every place he wanted to sell cars - so he franchised out to the...
The reason dealerships exist is because back in the 1900s, Ford knew he couldn't afford to set up his own shops and mechanics in every place he wanted to sell cars - so he franchised out to the existing mechanics in various places.
Once those existing dealerships were in place, Ford spent decades expanding his sales and there was no reason to particularly squeeze the dealerships. So they stuck around with Ford's support for 50+ years.
During those 50+ years, they formed political blocs and claimed they provided protection against manufacturers (and for all we know, they did), but ultimately we've never actually seriously tested going dealership-less.
There are also an order of magnitude more car manufacturers these days then there were back when it was... just Ford haha. I don't see any real legitimate reason for it to be illegal to sell...
There are also an order of magnitude more car manufacturers these days then there were back when it was... just Ford haha. I don't see any real legitimate reason for it to be illegal to sell direct to consumer anymore.
Is it possible that manufacturers will form their own cartels to force the prices up? Probably, but that's literally already happening with car dealerships, so that's not a great argument against it.
Are there more today than back when it was just Ford, Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Dodge Brothers, Chrysler (pre-formation), Studebaker, Packard, Hudson, Willys-Overland, Maxwell,...
There are also an order of magnitude more car manufacturers these days then there were back when it was... just Ford haha. I
Yeah, there was a crazy amount of manufacturers in the first few decades of the 20th century. Of course, cars were also much easier to build back then. You just needed a few Tommies getting...
Yeah, there was a crazy amount of manufacturers in the first few decades of the 20th century. Of course, cars were also much easier to build back then. You just needed a few Tommies getting shitfaced in a machine shop to build something beautiful.
(Also, there's a Stratechery blog post from 2020 I like called "The End of the Beginning". He relates the early explosion of the automotive industry, and its eventual consolidation into a few, seemingly immortal companies that have been around for a century, and will likely continue to be around for a very long time, to tech companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. The implication is: what if this is it for tech? What if today's "major players" are going to be it for the next century?)
Do tiny european regional manufacturers really count for a discussion about US law if their cars aren't available outside of their tiny area? Sure there may have been thousands of manufacturers...
Do tiny european regional manufacturers really count for a discussion about US law if their cars aren't available outside of their tiny area? Sure there may have been thousands of manufacturers but a consumer couldn't expect to buy a car from another state back in the 1930s if it wasn't built by Ford, GM, or Chrysler, let alone another country. But I suppose being technically correct is more important.
The point of my comment is that these laws that were supposed to protect the consumer from someone manipulating the prices of vehicles but these days it does the opposite. Consumers have far more choices of actual GOOD cars these days, from both imports and domestic manufacturers.
By the mid 1930s (when the banning of direct to consumer sales lobbying began by car dealerships) there were hardly any major manufacturers left in the US other than Ford, General Motors, and...
By the mid 1930s (when the banning of direct to consumer sales lobbying began by car dealerships) there were hardly any major manufacturers left in the US other than Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. The great depression killed off 99.5% of them before these laws even went into effect in many states.
Your snark is appreciated, but misplaced. The point of my comment is that these laws that were supposed to protect the consumer from someone manipulating the prices of vehicles but these days it does the opposite. Consumers have far more choices of actual GOOD cars these days, from both imports and domestic manufacturers. The funny thing about all those tiny companies you listed is that no one actually would have been able to buy cars from them unless they lived in the same area as the company, they weren't shipping Barron & Barron or Springuel cars to Nashville TN. I was obviously referring to the US because that's where the laws I was discussing were made... why would I be referring to tiny european car manufacturers who never shipped a car outside of their town and died off before these laws were even proposed.
The reason is that companies like AutoNation (publicly traded with a market cap of $7 billion dollars) lobby and say that getting rid of dealerships would be destroying small, family-owned...
The reason is that companies like AutoNation (publicly traded with a market cap of $7 billion dollars) lobby and say that getting rid of dealerships would be destroying small, family-owned businesses. On one hand, yeah, small dealerships would suffer... but maybe if that's all it takes for them to suffer then it's not a good business? On the other hand, AutoNation likes to pretend they're one of those small businesses when they're actually a megacorporation. *shrug*
Is it really small families that own Ford, GM, or Toyota dealerships? Every one I've seen is owned by either one of the richest families in the state, or private equity. Used car dealerships,...
Is it really small families that own Ford, GM, or Toyota dealerships? Every one I've seen is owned by either one of the richest families in the state, or private equity.
Used car dealerships, while also often very slimy, seem much more likely to actually be small businesses. I don't think they would be all that heavily impacted by letting automakers sell new vehicles direct-to-consumer.
This is not why the law as created in the first place. Too many people don't know the history of what they're arguing about, and while I do think it's a problem I don't think people understand...
This is not why the law as created in the first place. Too many people don't know the history of what they're arguing about, and while I do think it's a problem I don't think people understand what problem this was originally trying to avoid.
So yes, there's lobbying from massive companies now. There wasn't when these laws were first made. It was, even then, to protect the consumer. Ripping them away and just putting all the power in the hands of the manufactures also has its demons.
Cars are the only product that comes to mind that is sold this way though. I think literally every other product on the market can be purchased directly from a manufacturer, right? Computers, cell...
Cars are the only product that comes to mind that is sold this way though. I think literally every other product on the market can be purchased directly from a manufacturer, right? Computers, cell phones, TVs, coffee makers, IKEA furniture, and houses (which are definitely more expensive than cars). I know I'm wading into the middle of this thread, but I can't see what I'm missing that makes cars a special product. Would love to read up on the subject if there's a summary you can point me towards, but part of the defense feels like the kind of things that would be revisionist history from dealerships.
Bicycles are still mostly sold through a dealership model, though most bike shops don't specialize (heh) in a single brand of bike. Bicycles benefit from regular maintenance from professionals,...
Bicycles are still mostly sold through a dealership model, though most bike shops don't specialize (heh) in a single brand of bike. Bicycles benefit from regular maintenance from professionals, much like cars, and consolidating sales and maintenance at a single location where bikes can be fitted to the buyer by someone who knows what they're doing makes for more satisfied buyers as compared to a bike being shipped unassembled to the end user.
Many bike manufacturers try to limit online sales specifically to ensure that the bikes people are riding have been assembled by a professional, and that the buyer is buying a bike that actually works for them, and they provide extensive incentives to bike shops in the form of generous payment plans for the bikes purchased wholesale, deep discounts on accessories, dedicated customer representatives for the bike shops, etc.
It's possible that some of the reasons that car dealerships exist line up with that, but it's also possible that the reasons for dealerships and bike shops have diverged.
A decent, and more unbiased, starting point is probably here: https://www.justice.gov/atr/economic-effects-state-bans-direct-manufacturer-sales-car-buyers In short, it's mostly due to the...
In short, it's mostly due to the logistics of cars, and the issue of consumers struggling to have the purchasing power to really matter. Dealerships have become their own boil on the system, but just collapsing one group of scum into an even small sub group of manufacturers is unlikely to see many, if any, benefits for the consumer.
You'll just be moving the benefits from the dealerships (which while scum also employ locals and keep the money in the region), to the even larger car corporations, of which there's arguably less than 20 that matter.
There are better solutions in how to handle car markets, and it does start with much better consumer protections, but I don't see how shifting from "the dealer screwed me" to "the foreign based manufacturer screwed me" is going to help anyone.
It'd be following the market trends of most everything else! That said, they'd take the neighborhood repair shop out of the equation over my dead body.
It'd be following the market trends of most everything else! That said, they'd take the neighborhood repair shop out of the equation over my dead body.
I think the situation would be the same for manufacturer owned dealerships. They would still have to make the lion's share of their profits off of car loans and maintenance, unless they find a way...
I think the situation would be the same for manufacturer owned dealerships. They would still have to make the lion's share of their profits off of car loans and maintenance, unless they find a way to make EVs as needy of maintenance as conventional cars.
As a former Fit driver, and a huge fan of them, my Civic ST isn't really that much bigger. It's something like a foot and a change longer (necessary for the bigger engine and my comfort as a six...
As a former Fit driver, and a huge fan of them, my Civic ST isn't really that much bigger. It's something like a foot and a change longer (necessary for the bigger engine and my comfort as a six foot tall person), approximately the same ~3000lb weight and has a far lower roofline.
It also manages more than 40mpg on interstate-only driving (and low to mid 30s in the city), beating the Fit on that front. It prefers 91 octane though. The new hybrid power train gets well into the 50s.
That extra length is a big deal in some situations. My current car (Nissan Ariya) just barely fits in my garage and modern Civics are a couple inches longer than my Ariya is. The Fit is about two...
That extra length is a big deal in some situations. My current car (Nissan Ariya) just barely fits in my garage and modern Civics are a couple inches longer than my Ariya is. The Fit is about two feet shorter which would free up a lot of breathing room.
I also just generally prefer hatches for the increased utility, and the Fit’s is more flexible than that of the hatchback variant of the Civic. The more my car can do without meaningfully increasing costs the better.
I’m not a big person though (about 5’9”) and I mainly need a car for groceries and errands. If Toyota/Mazda made an EV version of the Yaris/Mazda2, which is even smaller than the Fit I could probably get by with it.
That's why I got a Chevrolet Bolt. It's as close to the Fit/Yaris/Mazda 2 size as you'll find in a U.S.-available EV, and you can get a low-mileage used one for <$20k. A model will be released in...
That's why I got a Chevrolet Bolt. It's as close to the Fit/Yaris/Mazda 2 size as you'll find in a U.S.-available EV, and you can get a low-mileage used one for <$20k. A model will be released in 2026 with newer battery technology and longer range.
The Bolt is definitely on my radar for when my lease is up later this year. The ‘21-23 models are of particular interest since they fix a number of papercuts compared to older models. The 2026...
The Bolt is definitely on my radar for when my lease is up later this year. The ‘21-23 models are of particular interest since they fix a number of papercuts compared to older models.
The 2026 model unfortunately isn’t a consideration even if there’s a good lease deal available simply because Chevy has said it won’t support CarPlay, which is a dealbreaker. I have no interest in having no option except to use legacy automaker infotainment to get on-dash maps.
I currently drive a Mazda2 and I completely agree — I’m so disappointed that the BYD Seagull (also named Dolphin Mini in some places) won’t be coming to Australia because it seemed like the...
mainly need a car for groceries and errands. If Toyota/Mazda made an EV version of the Yaris/Mazda2, which is even smaller than the Fit I could probably get by with it.
I currently drive a Mazda2 and I completely agree — I’m so disappointed that the BYD Seagull (also named Dolphin Mini in some places) won’t be coming to Australia because it seemed like the closest in size to what I’m currently used to.
Basically anything that’s not strictly required. I probably wouldn’t go quite that barebones myself, but it’s important for the option to be there for those who want, plus it makes dealer markup...
Basically anything that’s not strictly required. I probably wouldn’t go quite that barebones myself, but it’s important for the option to be there for those who want, plus it makes dealer markup look even more unjustifiable than it already is.
What would an example be? Some things that may seem like luxuries are now required by law. For example, it’s required for all cars sold in the US after 2018 to have both a rear view camera and a...
What would an example be? Some things that may seem like luxuries are now required by law. For example, it’s required for all cars sold in the US after 2018 to have both a rear view camera and a display to show it.
Anything that might’ve been attached to a higher trim level in the past, back when base level cars still had crank windows. And yeah you’d have to make concessions for safety regulations, but that...
Anything that might’ve been attached to a higher trim level in the past, back when base level cars still had crank windows.
And yeah you’d have to make concessions for safety regulations, but that can still be a significant cost cut. The camera and display requirement can be met with the cheapest small LCD panel and backup cam on the shelf and a minimal microcontroller instead of a full fat touchscreen infotainment system.
Interestingly, the electronic windows' switch is actually rather regulated. My understanding of the couple decades process: Crank windows exist Electronic windows are introduced into the upper...
Interestingly, the electronic windows' switch is actually rather regulated. My understanding of the couple decades process:
Crank windows exist
Electronic windows are introduced into the upper trims
Gradually electronic windows make their way to all but the most barest of bones models because they're cheaper than cranks (less moving parts, more standardization!)
Crank windows are GONE because automakers realize they're throwing away too much money on maintaining the crank infrastructure
Standardization and regulation is introduced mandating that all electronic window buttons operate in a known manner to be safest in the event of children or accidents.
I'm in the market for a cheap compact used car (and I specifically want a manual if at all possible, since I can't afford an EV right now), and I've seen a few Fiestas, Cruzes, and Sparks made...
I'm in the market for a cheap compact used car (and I specifically want a manual if at all possible, since I can't afford an EV right now), and I've seen a few Fiestas, Cruzes, and Sparks made under 10 years ago with crank windows still. This 2020 Chevy Spark is a quick example of that. Still has the nice infotainment system instead of the minimal setup you describe, but crank windows.
IIRC that Slate truck is supposed to come with hand crank windows as well. The crank window just won't completely disappear, it seems like.
This is the reasoning that’s usually given, but I see so many of these now-mostly-discontinued smaller models all over the place when I’m out that I have to wonder how true it is. Fits, Matrixes...
This is the reasoning that’s usually given, but I see so many of these now-mostly-discontinued smaller models all over the place when I’m out that I have to wonder how true it is. Fits, Matrixes (Matrices?), Bolts, Focuses, Mirages, Elements, and 500/500e’s are all regular sights.
Maybe it’s regional. I could definitely see small practical cars being more popular in pacific coast states, the whole big SUV/truck machismo thing isn’t as omnipresent in urban areas out here.
It's not that compact cars don't sell well, it's that they're not as profitable for automakers and market conditions have been favorable for financing the largest cars people can afford. Every...
Car prices are on the rise around the world. Yet despite this inflationary wave, one carmaker is moving in the opposite direction. BYD has cut prices on 22 of its electric and hybrid models, bringing the price of its popular Seagull electric vehicle below that of a high-end road bike.
...
The Seagull, already a global outlier for its low price, has dropped further to just Rmb55,800 ($7,780) in China. The most dramatic cut was for the Seal dual motor hybrid, which fell by Rmb53,000 to Rmb102,800.
These price cuts come as the EV industry enters a new phase. While total sales remain high, growth is slowing. In China, dealerships held 3.5mn unsold EVs as of April, the highest level since December 2023.
...
When BYD cuts prices, it buys market share and future pricing power. Despite multiple rounds of price cuts in recent years, some as steep as 30 per cent, gross margins have continued to rise since 2021, reflecting its margin buffer.
This ability to undercut rivals without sacrificing profitability marks a broader shift in the EV value proposition. Legacy automakers have priced EVs as premium products, citing technology costs and brand value. BYD’s approach challenges that assumption, leaving rivals fewer ways to justify higher prices.
...
Carmakers are coming under similar pressure: in Europe, where they are adapting to the economics of electrification, BYD’s price shock adds urgency. Last month, it surpassed Tesla in regional EV sales for the first time, with Tesla’s volume down 49 per cent, while BYD’s rose 169 per cent. In Singapore, it became the top-selling brand, outselling Toyota despite its models being priced on par.
I’d note that BYD has a 50% tariff on its cars in Europe. That it’s competitive at all while forking over 50% of the cost of the vehicle to taxes is insane.
I’d note that BYD has a 50% tariff on its cars in Europe. That it’s competitive at all while forking over 50% of the cost of the vehicle to taxes is insane.
One thing making people hesitant about new cars is the built in spyware. I wonder how Chinese manufactured cars will play into that. Another TikTok banning bruhaha?
One thing making people hesitant about new cars is the built in spyware.
I wonder how Chinese manufactured cars will play into that. Another TikTok banning bruhaha?
In the car's defense, it was like 95% city miles, with a huge number of 'not enough time to warm the engine' trips. I didn't get it until it had 120k on it, so I have 0 idea how well the previous...
In the car's defense, it was like 95% city miles, with a huge number of 'not enough time to warm the engine' trips.
I didn't get it until it had 120k on it, so I have 0 idea how well the previous owners maintained, but I probably was not doing nearly enough.
The main reason I got rid of it is because it was during the firestorm of used vans going for way over resale (and worried the Ukraine war was gonna drive gas over $5/gallon) , and used that to step up to a hybrid RAV4. Other than going from 15 mpg to 30+, I regret.
I’ve been thinking about selling my 2006 sienna that just crossed 100k miles and getting something newer with better mileage, and it’s really hard to give up how convenient the Sienna is. This...
I’ve been thinking about selling my 2006 sienna that just crossed 100k miles and getting something newer with better mileage, and it’s really hard to give up how convenient the Sienna is.
This chain’s definitely going to give me more hesitation about getting rid of it before it develops any actual issues.
It's no big deal: /s Uh, unless you're making babies in the back seat, how does your car track your 'sexual activity'?
It's no big deal: /s
Nissan earned its second-to-last spot for collecting some of the creepiest categories of data we have ever seen. It’s worth reading the review in full, but you should know it includes your “sexual activity.” Not to be out done, Kia also mentions they can collect information about your “sex life” in their privacy policy. Oh, and six car companies say they can collect your “genetic information” or “genetic characteristics.” Yes, reading car privacy policies is a scary endeavor.
Uh, unless you're making babies in the back seat, how does your car track your 'sexual activity'?
If you read the policy as it was written in 2023, it was right in there: And this one: Does it really matter how if they feel the need to spell it out? Odds are it's collected from other data...
Inferences drawn from any Personal Data collected to create a profile about a consumer reflecting the consumer’s preferences, characteristics, psychological trends, predispositions, behavior, attitudes, intelligence, abilities, and aptitudes
And this one:
Sensitive Personal Data, including: driver’s license number, national or state identification number, citizenship status, immigration status, race, national origin, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, sexual activity, precise geolocation, health diagnosis data, and genetic information
Does it really matter how if they feel the need to spell it out? Odds are it's collected from other data broker and cross-referenced. Hence how they think they can devine a profile about you.
The new policy has been significantly reworded, probably as a response to this. But I'd bet money the internal workings are the same.
WARNING! OFF TOPIC QUESTION * Hi skybrian I can see that B is at start of headline.. BYD’s aggressive push is setting baseline for what an EV should cost And t is the 68th letter. Hence the 0 and...
WARNING! OFF TOPIC QUESTION *
Hi skybrian
I can see that B is at start of headline..
BYD’s aggressive push is setting baseline for what an EV should cost
And t is the 68th letter.
Hence the 0 and 68 in your link... https://archive.is/zt8wE#selection-1551.0-1551.68
So my browser scrolls to that headline and highlights those 68 letters.
That's smart.
But where does the 1551 come from?
And did you calculate this selection yourself counting on your fingers, or was it generated by your browser?
(Scroll to Text Fragments feature or similar).
That was already happening since they are heavily subsidized by the government. It's part of the reason they're tariffed so heavily since it's unfair competition.
That was already happening since they are heavily subsidized by the government. It's part of the reason they're tariffed so heavily since it's unfair competition.
I doubt it. The reason why Chinese carmakers rose so fast is because the Chinese auto market is a fiercely competitive crucible. To raise prices is to concede ground to other Chinese carmakers.
I doubt it. The reason why Chinese carmakers rose so fast is because the Chinese auto market is a fiercely competitive crucible.
To raise prices is to concede ground to other Chinese carmakers.
I remember seeing something about the EU and China being in negotiations to let China sell EVs in Europe. The article I read it in was discussing this possibility as the final nail in the coffin...
I remember seeing something about the EU and China being in negotiations to let China sell EVs in Europe. The article I read it in was discussing this possibility as the final nail in the coffin for Tesla's EU business.
Either get the US auto makers on par with value from what's coming out of China or let their vehicles in. There should not be any other option where we plug our ears and leave Ford/GM/Tesla to twiddle their thumbs.
We'll never match China on price due to unionized, American labor, but we can certainly have better value proposition. I'm okay with us paying more for cars if the price disparity isn't astronomical and it protects the industry. However, no one I know wants to buy an American car because the reliability isn't there. There's not a single American brand in the top 10 of Consumer Reports's reliability rankings. Unions fought for decades to get fair compensation for workers and I'm not advocating for that to go away at all, but there's nothing that says they can't make more reliable cars, even if the price is a bit higher than foreign cars.
American autoworkers union believes installing seats in a car or snapping on a front grille is worth $30/hr. After watching numerous assembly line videos, I have to wonder how a job that you can learn in an hour is worth that much? Its not skilled labor, you are simply a droid doing simple, repetitive work.
If a Chinese worker is willing to do the same thing for $10/hr, American makers don't stand a chance.
Given that minimum wage in half the states is over $10/hr, that seems like a foregone conclusion.
And Idk, 30/hr seems fair? I'm in a high COL area so $30 isn't taking you that far to begin with.
I wonder why all the people who insist auto workers are overpaid for labor you can learn in an hour don't just switch to working as auto workers, then. Surely there can't be other downsides or complications related to that work that make higher compensation more worth it. I find white collar workers who disparage those who do physical or "unskilled" labor as somehow not deserving a fair living for their work absolutely disgusting.
Not to mention comparing it to China, where the cost-of-living and wages in general are significantly lower, without providing context is absurd. The hourly minimum wage in Beijing (where afaik has the highest hourly minimum wage anywhere in China) is 26.4 yuan/hour, which is roughly equivalent to $3.7/hour. California's minimum wage is $16.4/hour. This means that, if indeed Chinese automakers are paying their equivalent workers $10/hour, those workers are making at least 2.7 times the minimum wage (and probably significantly more than that, assuming said automaker is located outside Beijing). An American autoworker making $30/hour is making 1.8 times the minimum wage in California by comparison.
I’m not great at looking things up like this, so take this with a grain of salt, but $30 an hour in 2025 is barely higher (in real terms, i.e. adjusted for inflation) than what they would have earned in the early 80s for the same kind of job. I don’t think people in the 80s were paid exorbitant salaries, but especially considering the cost of living today, I think that kind of salary doesn’t go as far as it used to.
It's not big money by an stretch. But if you're doing radically unskilled labor and live in Detroit, well, it's plenty.
"Unskilled labor" is a classist myth to justify poverty wages. A few years ago "unskilled labor" were suddenly "essential workers" to make sure the economy didn't completely collapse and the moneyed interests didn't have to risk getting COVID by going out to get their own groceries.
The only actual unskilled labor I've ever witnessed is landlords and using the word "labor" is a stretch since there's nothing actually being done or produced. Well, maybe landlords and car salespeople.
I'd prefer "common skills" versus "scarce skills". Tradespeople command premium pay because there's high demand and few who have the combination of training and experience necessary to perform adequate quality work. Same with professions that require years of formal qualifications, certifications, licenses, and practical experience.
It's not that people who work in low-wage jobs are "unskilled", it's that they have skills perceived as generally available, with minimal experience required to apply them at sufficient levels of performance. [I don't know anyone who works in child or assistive care, retail, fast food, landscaping, and warehouse jobs who's "unskilled" or getting the pay they deserve, but these fields are nearly always available to those with minimal formal qualifications.]
The big downside to "common skills" jobs is that there's not much opportunity for recognized skills progression at work. It's not that there's no growth in competency, it's that there's no framework for recognizing and compensating for it. Years of child care, landscaping, retail, driving, or fast food only qualifies you for more of the same, with a nearly flat pay scale. There are very rare management opportunities that scarcely pay more. It's possible to open your own establishment (with lots of self-study on business operations and regulations, and outside investment or loans). Extended warehouse work mostly qualifies you for a permanent disability.
Factory work now requires far more formal qualifications than the Rivethead days where anyone who could swing a tool could get a job.
It usually takes at least a couple of years of community college and an apprenticeship in machining, robotics, process control, welding, pipefitting, electronics, or other near-trades skills to get an entry-level factory job. And if you're not in a union shop (most auto-adjacent parts factories aren't unionized), you're starting at $15 - $18/hour.
Well, some landlords may be 'unskilled'. I have to be very skilled as I do my own design, building and renovations - have put a full suite in a multiple bare basements and know how to do cabinet work, electrical, plumbing, flooring, drywalling, painting and finish work to get it completed plus at times roofing, window installation, siding, and appliance repair - so I wont take that personally :)
But Im not sure what's 'classist myth' about saying something is unskilled when it doesnt take much skill to learn it. There's a reason one doesnt make much money mowing lawns compared to a doctor who has spent 12 years in post secondary education. We highly value what is difficult to achieve and hard to replace, yes?
These two links may help explain the problem with "unskilled" labour:
https://waytoocomplicated.substack.com/p/unskilled-labor-is-a-myth
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unskilled-labor.asp
This may be more of an issue in the US, but here in Canada, minimum wage is more than double that. Most provinces its $15/hr. My one daughter is a house cleaner which is arguably low skill and charges out at 32/hr but has no problem getting clients. Another daughter is a new doctor and is making over 250k a year so we definitely see the difference in training and skill valued differently.
So the article would prefer 'low skill' to 'unskilled'? Seems like semantics but ok, there's some skill in every job just a lot more required in some than others. Personally I dont think the term affects much, but what's pc is always in flux. The key component is how difficult the job is and how long it takes to learn it and how hard that worker is to replace.
For context Ive been in a decently paid administrative position over 40 staff where I earned a 'professional' income and I've also been a bus driver where I barely made over minimum wage. I know that both jobs had value but one took me 7 years of university to qualify for and the other I was trained in 2 days, so there's no way I expected to be paid anywhere close to the same wage. Driving a bus isn't 'unskilled' but its definitely low skill - I literally drove in a 12 minute circle route for 8 hours a day. Mind numbingly simple.
Interesting. Because in order to become a doctor you have to know the entire body's many systems and how they interact. Ive watched two of my kids become doctors so Ive seen how much study it takes (and tenacity) to make it that far. Not all docs will be equal but Im pretty confident that you cant be completely inept - not only making it through the studies involved but also through all the rotations and internships if you dont have some pretty decent skills.
And no offense to your earlier examples, but Im pretty sure someone could learn both those jobs in a few weeks of training. The have skills sure, but nothing like 12 years of post secondary training so you dont kill a patient at 2 am after working a 30 hr shift which is indeed the torturous path to becoming a doctor. Do I expect my lawn guy to get paid 300k to 500k a year? Nope. But a doc? For sure.
Not OP, but it’s not about effort so much as the rarity of the skill and the net value. If we paid people for effort, then you’d get paid to go the gym. Bodybuilders would be amongst the highest paid people.
A doctor isn’t exerting themselves very much when they listen to a patients symptoms and give a diagnosis. But a) the value is high, as that can prevent death and injury, and most people would like not dying b) only a few people exist that can do it, because you have to do many years of med school + residency to get there.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with your assessment of a doctors responsibility would jive with reality, but it’s beyond the point so I won’t dwell with it. The point is that effort isn’t the metric by which we compensate people and it should not be.
Skills which have a high net impact and which are rare are compensated more than skills which are ubiquitous. That should be the case, because it’s an incentive for more people to learn that skill. So yes, the grass mower deserves less pay than the doctor.
Yes. Professional athletes aren't a dime a dozen by definition. There's maybe a couple thousand in each sport that can be said to be "professional". The raw physical talent to be in the top 1000 humans for a given sport is definitely rare. They are really professional entertainers, though, which is what they are paid for. Given how many people love to watch sports, they indeed deserve the millions.
Same for artists; this is ultimately entertainment as well. If a famous artist can entertain millions, while another artist is ignored, then it is what it is.
And yet the highest paid athletes and artists don't necessarily have the largest audiences...
So why do they deserve such high incomes exactly?
For one, those numbers are apples and oranges. The viewership of the entirety of a sport and of a single athlete are very different things. Second, they deserve it because they contribute the individual viewership of the team.
Curry from the NBA is an excellent example, as he is core to the Warriors going from a poverty franchise no one cared about to being one of the league's biggest fanbases. Players of Curry's caliber can be counted on one hand. He is one of the highest paid athletes in the world, but you'd be crazy to say that he's not worth every penny.
Part of the human condition is to be entertained, and an athlete like Curry can entertain hundreds of millions of people. And not just entertain, but entertain to such a degree that they are willing to exchange a lot of value the audience members have created to watch him.
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But you moved the goalpost. The point is that effort and compensation are not correlated and shouldn’t be correlated.
If there existed a hypothetical person who could spawn infinite wheat by doing nothing, then they would be compensated handsomely, because what matters isn’t how much effort (0) they’re putting in, it’s that wheat is valuable because humans require carbs to live and they are the only person who can spawn wheat without farming it. Even though they’re doing nothing.
You can argue that Curry doesn’t put in more effort than YMCA basketball player, which isn’t true but the difference in the effort is not nearly as big as the difference in compensation ($-60 vs $60m). The difference isn’t the effort, but the fact that hundreds of millions of people are entertained by Curry.
That’s separate from an issue of opportunity inequality. People should be given the opportunity to learn valuable skills, sure. That doesn’t change that some skills are more valuable than others, and some are more rare than others. In a world where that rice farmer is also a star basketball player, there are still many many people who have little to no unique skills and will be compensated as such.
You obviously have a high disdain for doctors, but on a practical side, if my lawn guy quit tomorrow, it would take me all of 15 minutes to find a new one. I like what he does, he's a nice guy but he's not indispensable. One ad and Id get half a dozen new lawn guys applying.
When my doctor quit tomorrow (like the last one did) it took me over two years to find a new one and get on her patient roster. Do I value her much more highly than my lawn guy? Absolutely. Because she's hard to find and not everyone even has access to a doctor's services. Im glad she's highly paid because I dont want her to leave.
I’m guessing that the difference is supposed to be made up for by:
The advantage being that a (dubiously) necessary part of the American economy stays under the control of American interests, which strengthens its position against foreign interference. I guess it also promotes some employment growth.
I wonder what car companies in Japan, South Korea, and Germany will do? It seems like anyone who wants to compete in Europe and Australia (at least) will need to do something.
The best thing to do is to bring back the concept of basic economy cars/trucks that are simple and cheap to build. Cars that aren’t concerned with showing off at all and are made solely to serve the purpose of getting around. Kinda like what Honda Civics and Fits used to be before they succumbed to feature and size creep.
Yeah the margins on those are thin, but people need cars they can afford to buy, and the need is only intensifying with used market prices rising right alongside their new vehicle counterparts.
Maybe Slate will make a go of it? It's hard to compete with a huge company like BYD, though.
Earlier today I saw a video about another startup trying to gear up to produce a relatively basic electric truck at a low price. When every car startup is trying to capture the low end, it seems there’s a problem with the industry.
Any chance it was the Telo truck? I only mention so because it came up in my YouTube recommendations as well. In that case, though, the truck is small but is expected to cost north of 41k USD (before incentives).
That was it but I could have sworn that their target price was in the 20K range.
I think you are thinking of the boxier Slate truck for that $20k price point.
The margins are thin as you wrote. I may not be right, but auto dealerships make most of their money from financing and repairing cars. EVs, in theory, require less maintenance. No transmissions, fewer moving parts.
Maybe we should just cut out the dealership middlemen and let manufacturers sell directly to customers.
God I wish, dealerships are a plague on the car buying experience, I'm incredibly socially anxious and don't want to play a fucking minigame when I'm buying a car to save potentially thousands of dollars.
They really do suck. Back when I leased my current vehicle I had to go out to a dealership a good 40m drive out from where I live because all of the dealerships close by downtown wouldn’t be caught dead giving you anything remotely resembling a deal.
Like Tesla wants? There’s a reason for that. And there’s a reason there are laws against it. It’s the sort of thing where there’s not an easy answer
The reason there are still laws against it is because car dealerships bribe and bully politicians into keeping it illegal. Car dealership owners have been consolidating power and money for decades and the VAST majority of them are HUGE companies that are owned by a very small number of people. In my town there are 8 massive dealerships in a row with different names that are all owned by the same venture capitalist group. It's a cartel that's only purpose is to abuse the consumer and separate them from their money. If there was any redeeming reason for keeping direct to consumer sales illegal it became heavily outweighed by the corrupt awful borderline criminal gang of car dealership owners and more recently the private equity companies that have been devouring them.
People say things like this often and its how we walk off cliffs. Turns out, no matter what rules you make, people will try to maximize and take everything. Just because this is bad now doesn't mean the solution is to backtrack to something we knew would be bad back then. There are other options.
The reason dealerships exist is because back in the 1900s, Ford knew he couldn't afford to set up his own shops and mechanics in every place he wanted to sell cars - so he franchised out to the existing mechanics in various places.
Once those existing dealerships were in place, Ford spent decades expanding his sales and there was no reason to particularly squeeze the dealerships. So they stuck around with Ford's support for 50+ years.
During those 50+ years, they formed political blocs and claimed they provided protection against manufacturers (and for all we know, they did), but ultimately we've never actually seriously tested going dealership-less.
There are also an order of magnitude more car manufacturers these days then there were back when it was... just Ford haha. I don't see any real legitimate reason for it to be illegal to sell direct to consumer anymore.
Is it possible that manufacturers will form their own cartels to force the prices up? Probably, but that's literally already happening with car dealerships, so that's not a great argument against it.
Are there more today than back when it was just Ford, Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Dodge Brothers, Chrysler (pre-formation), Studebaker, Packard, Hudson, Willys-Overland, Maxwell, Oakland, Pierce-Arrow, Mercer, Stutz, Locomobile, Franklin, Hupmobile, Overland, Scripps-Booth, Duesenberg, Abbott-Detroit, Elcar, Premier, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Austin, Morris, Vauxhall, Sunbeam, Lanchester, Armstrong Siddeley, Alvis, Renault, Peugeot, Citroën, Delage, Bugatti, Mercedes (Daimler), Opel, Horch, BMW (pre-cars), Wanderer, Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Lancia, Isotta Fraschini, Austro-Daimler, Scania-Vabis, Laurin & Klement (Škoda), Metz, Cartercar, Winton, Saxon, Cole, King, McFarlan, Rauch & Lang, Simplex, Peerless, Moon, Briscoe, Columbia, Empire, Flanders, Jeffery (pre-Nash), Mitchell, Reo, Templar, Velie, White, American, Argo, Case, Chalmers, Dorris, E-M-F, Haynes, Krit, Lexington, Marmon, Maibohm, Premier, Republic, Roamer, Stephens, Touraine, Westcott, Pathfinder, Premier, Rickenbacker, Spacke, Standard, Stearns, Sterns-Knight, Wasp, Welch, Dort, Enger, Grant, Harvard, Hollier, Hackett, Harroun, K-R-I-T, LaFayette, Liberty, Lion, Matheson, Monroe, Moyer, Norwalk, Paige, Pilot, Princess, Regal, Russell, Sampson, Savidge, SGV, Simplicity, Stoddard-Dayton, Twombly, Vulcan, Waltham, Westinghouse, Zimmerman, Ariel, Arrol-Johnston, Belsize, Calthorpe, Crossley, Daimler (UK), Darracq, GN, Hillman, Humber, Invicta, Jowett, Lea-Francis, Leyland, Napier, New Hudson, Riley, Rover, Singer, Standard, Swift, Talbot, Triumph, AC, Albion, Allard, Alldays, Angus-Sanderson, Argyll, Aster, Aston Martin (founded 1913), Avro, Bean, Brough Superior, Calcott, Clyno, Cooper, Cubitt, Cundall, DFP, Dennis, GWK, Hampton, Healey, Hewitt, HP, Imperial, Jensen, JBS, Kingsbury, Lancia (UK), Lloyd, Martinsyde, Maudslay, Morgan, NEC, Newey, NUT, Pick, Premier, GWK, Rex, Ruston-Hornsby, Sheffield-Simplex, Star, Straker-Squire, Sun, Talbot, Tamplin, Thornycroft, Turner, Vauxhall, Vulcan, Warwick, White and Poppe, Wolseley, Ader, Aries, Ballot, Barré, Baudier, Bedelia, Bellanger, Benova, Berliet, Bignan, Bolide, BNC, Brasier, CGV, Clément-Bayard, Clément-Talbot, Corre, Cottin & Desgouttes, De Dion-Bouton, Decauville, Delahaye, Derby, Donnet, D’Yrsan, EHP, Eclair, Einaudi, Farman, Fenwick, Georges Irat, Gladiator, Gobron-Brillié, Guinness, Hispano-Suiza, Hurtu, Janoir, La Buire, La Licorne, Le Zèbre, Lorraine-Dietrich, Majola, Majestic, Mors, Motobloc, Mutel, Nieuport, Oméga, Panhard & Levassor, Pathfinder, Philos, Piccard-Pictet, Pilain, Rally, Ratier, Renault, Rolland-Pilain, Sage, Salmson, Saurer, SCAP, Sénéchal, Sigma, Sima-Violet, Sizaire-Berwick, Sizaire-Naudin, SPAD, Th. Schneider, Thieulin, Turcat-Méry, Unic, Védrine, Vinot & Deguingand, Violet-Bogey, Walter, Zédel, Austro-Daimler, Graf & Stift, Gräf, Laurin & Klement, Nesselsdorf (Tatra), Praga, RAF (Czech), Walter, Alfa Romeo, Aquila Italiana, Ceirano, Chiribiri, Diatto, FIAL, Itala, Junior, Lancia, Legnano, Lombardo, Marca-Tre-Spade, Nazzaro, O.S.C.A. (predecessor), SPA, SCAT, Zust, Daimler (Germany), Brennabor, Hansa, NAG, Protos, Stoewer, Audi, Apollo, Framo, Grade, Koco, Mathis, Maybach, NSU, Phänomen, Presto, Rex-Simplex, Rumpler, Simson, Wartburg, AGA, Bjerke, DKW (pre-cars), Ehrhardt, Kühlstein, Lloyd (Germany), Mannesmann, Maurer-Union, Mebea, Merkur, Meteor, Minimus, National, Podeus, Rabag, Scheibler, Seidel, Slaby-Beringer, VOMAG, Zschopau, Benz, Cudell, Dietrich, Drauz, Ehrhardt, Faun, Gaggenau, Gasmobil, Gülner, Hartmann, Hercules, Kaelble, Koehler, Kruckenberg, Lastwagen, Löwenstein, MAN, Markomobil, Maurer, Merkur, NAG, Neander, NSU, Oryx, Pallas, Podeus, Rabag, Rex, Scheibler, Seidel, Slaby-Beringer, VOMAG, Zschopau, Daimler (Austria), Egger-Lohner, Gräf & Stift, Laurin & Klement, Nesselsdorf (Tatra), Praga, RAF (Czech), Walter, Minerva, Belga Rise, Métallurgique, Excelsior, FN, Germain, Imperia, Miesse, Nagant, Pipe, Springuel, Vivinus, Bardon, Barron & Barron, Blériot, Calthorpe, Clément-Talbot, Clyno, Cooper, Crouch, Cubitt, GWK, Hampton, Healey, Hewitt, HP, Imperial, Jensen, JBS, Kingsbury, Lancia (UK), Lloyd, Martinsyde, Maudslay, Morgan, NEC, Newey, NUT, Pick, Premier, GWK, Rex, Ruston-Hornsby, Sheffield-Simplex, Star, Straker-Squire, Sun, Talbot, Tamplin, Thornycroft, Turner, Vauxhall, Vulcan, Warwick, White and Poppe, and Wolseley?
Yeah, there was a crazy amount of manufacturers in the first few decades of the 20th century. Of course, cars were also much easier to build back then. You just needed a few Tommies getting shitfaced in a machine shop to build something beautiful.
(Also, there's a Stratechery blog post from 2020 I like called "The End of the Beginning". He relates the early explosion of the automotive industry, and its eventual consolidation into a few, seemingly immortal companies that have been around for a century, and will likely continue to be around for a very long time, to tech companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. The implication is: what if this is it for tech? What if today's "major players" are going to be it for the next century?)
Do tiny european regional manufacturers really count for a discussion about US law if their cars aren't available outside of their tiny area? Sure there may have been thousands of manufacturers but a consumer couldn't expect to buy a car from another state back in the 1930s if it wasn't built by Ford, GM, or Chrysler, let alone another country. But I suppose being technically correct is more important.
The point of my comment is that these laws that were supposed to protect the consumer from someone manipulating the prices of vehicles but these days it does the opposite. Consumers have far more choices of actual GOOD cars these days, from both imports and domestic manufacturers.
I'm not trying to get involved in this argument I just wanted to share two links I thought were cool ✌️
By the mid 1930s (when the banning of direct to consumer sales lobbying began by car dealerships) there were hardly any major manufacturers left in the US other than Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. The great depression killed off 99.5% of them before these laws even went into effect in many states.
Your snark is appreciated, but misplaced. The point of my comment is that these laws that were supposed to protect the consumer from someone manipulating the prices of vehicles but these days it does the opposite. Consumers have far more choices of actual GOOD cars these days, from both imports and domestic manufacturers. The funny thing about all those tiny companies you listed is that no one actually would have been able to buy cars from them unless they lived in the same area as the company, they weren't shipping Barron & Barron or Springuel cars to Nashville TN. I was obviously referring to the US because that's where the laws I was discussing were made... why would I be referring to tiny european car manufacturers who never shipped a car outside of their town and died off before these laws were even proposed.
The reason is that companies like AutoNation (publicly traded with a market cap of $7 billion dollars) lobby and say that getting rid of dealerships would be destroying small, family-owned businesses. On one hand, yeah, small dealerships would suffer... but maybe if that's all it takes for them to suffer then it's not a good business? On the other hand, AutoNation likes to pretend they're one of those small businesses when they're actually a megacorporation. *shrug*
Is it really small families that own Ford, GM, or Toyota dealerships? Every one I've seen is owned by either one of the richest families in the state, or private equity.
Used car dealerships, while also often very slimy, seem much more likely to actually be small businesses. I don't think they would be all that heavily impacted by letting automakers sell new vehicles direct-to-consumer.
There are, I know one personally and there are a few others in the area, but they are the exception to the rule for sure.
This is not why the law as created in the first place. Too many people don't know the history of what they're arguing about, and while I do think it's a problem I don't think people understand what problem this was originally trying to avoid.
So yes, there's lobbying from massive companies now. There wasn't when these laws were first made. It was, even then, to protect the consumer. Ripping them away and just putting all the power in the hands of the manufactures also has its demons.
Cars are the only product that comes to mind that is sold this way though. I think literally every other product on the market can be purchased directly from a manufacturer, right? Computers, cell phones, TVs, coffee makers, IKEA furniture, and houses (which are definitely more expensive than cars). I know I'm wading into the middle of this thread, but I can't see what I'm missing that makes cars a special product. Would love to read up on the subject if there's a summary you can point me towards, but part of the defense feels like the kind of things that would be revisionist history from dealerships.
Bicycles are still mostly sold through a dealership model, though most bike shops don't specialize (heh) in a single brand of bike. Bicycles benefit from regular maintenance from professionals, much like cars, and consolidating sales and maintenance at a single location where bikes can be fitted to the buyer by someone who knows what they're doing makes for more satisfied buyers as compared to a bike being shipped unassembled to the end user.
Many bike manufacturers try to limit online sales specifically to ensure that the bikes people are riding have been assembled by a professional, and that the buyer is buying a bike that actually works for them, and they provide extensive incentives to bike shops in the form of generous payment plans for the bikes purchased wholesale, deep discounts on accessories, dedicated customer representatives for the bike shops, etc.
It's possible that some of the reasons that car dealerships exist line up with that, but it's also possible that the reasons for dealerships and bike shops have diverged.
Yeah that's fair, but then what is the original reason?
A decent, and more unbiased, starting point is probably here: https://www.justice.gov/atr/economic-effects-state-bans-direct-manufacturer-sales-car-buyers
In short, it's mostly due to the logistics of cars, and the issue of consumers struggling to have the purchasing power to really matter. Dealerships have become their own boil on the system, but just collapsing one group of scum into an even small sub group of manufacturers is unlikely to see many, if any, benefits for the consumer.
You'll just be moving the benefits from the dealerships (which while scum also employ locals and keep the money in the region), to the even larger car corporations, of which there's arguably less than 20 that matter.
There are better solutions in how to handle car markets, and it does start with much better consumer protections, but I don't see how shifting from "the dealer screwed me" to "the foreign based manufacturer screwed me" is going to help anyone.
It'd be following the market trends of most everything else! That said, they'd take the neighborhood repair shop out of the equation over my dead body.
I think manufacturers should be compelled to provide manuals, spare parts, and any diagnostic equipment at a fair price.
Somebody with a spine would need to compel them to do such a crazy, rational thing.
Not sure about your government, but I don't trust mine to.
JuSt lEt ThE iNvIsIbLe hAnD dO iT's JoB!
I think the situation would be the same for manufacturer owned dealerships. They would still have to make the lion's share of their profits off of car loans and maintenance, unless they find a way to make EVs as needy of maintenance as conventional cars.
As a former Fit driver, and a huge fan of them, my Civic ST isn't really that much bigger. It's something like a foot and a change longer (necessary for the bigger engine and my comfort as a six foot tall person), approximately the same ~3000lb weight and has a far lower roofline.
It also manages more than 40mpg on interstate-only driving (and low to mid 30s in the city), beating the Fit on that front. It prefers 91 octane though. The new hybrid power train gets well into the 50s.
That extra length is a big deal in some situations. My current car (Nissan Ariya) just barely fits in my garage and modern Civics are a couple inches longer than my Ariya is. The Fit is about two feet shorter which would free up a lot of breathing room.
I also just generally prefer hatches for the increased utility, and the Fit’s is more flexible than that of the hatchback variant of the Civic. The more my car can do without meaningfully increasing costs the better.
I’m not a big person though (about 5’9”) and I mainly need a car for groceries and errands. If Toyota/Mazda made an EV version of the Yaris/Mazda2, which is even smaller than the Fit I could probably get by with it.
That's why I got a Chevrolet Bolt. It's as close to the Fit/Yaris/Mazda 2 size as you'll find in a U.S.-available EV, and you can get a low-mileage used one for <$20k. A model will be released in 2026 with newer battery technology and longer range.
The Bolt is definitely on my radar for when my lease is up later this year. The ‘21-23 models are of particular interest since they fix a number of papercuts compared to older models.
The 2026 model unfortunately isn’t a consideration even if there’s a good lease deal available simply because Chevy has said it won’t support CarPlay, which is a dealbreaker. I have no interest in having no option except to use legacy automaker infotainment to get on-dash maps.
I currently drive a Mazda2 and I completely agree — I’m so disappointed that the BYD Seagull (also named Dolphin Mini in some places) won’t be coming to Australia because it seemed like the closest in size to what I’m currently used to.
Civics definitely got a bit larger, but what else would you consider “feature creep”?
Basically anything that’s not strictly required. I probably wouldn’t go quite that barebones myself, but it’s important for the option to be there for those who want, plus it makes dealer markup look even more unjustifiable than it already is.
What would an example be? Some things that may seem like luxuries are now required by law. For example, it’s required for all cars sold in the US after 2018 to have both a rear view camera and a display to show it.
Anything that might’ve been attached to a higher trim level in the past, back when base level cars still had crank windows.
And yeah you’d have to make concessions for safety regulations, but that can still be a significant cost cut. The camera and display requirement can be met with the cheapest small LCD panel and backup cam on the shelf and a minimal microcontroller instead of a full fat touchscreen infotainment system.
Interestingly, the electronic windows' switch is actually rather regulated. My understanding of the couple decades process:
I'm in the market for a cheap compact used car (and I specifically want a manual if at all possible, since I can't afford an EV right now), and I've seen a few Fiestas, Cruzes, and Sparks made under 10 years ago with crank windows still. This 2020 Chevy Spark is a quick example of that. Still has the nice infotainment system instead of the minimal setup you describe, but crank windows.
IIRC that Slate truck is supposed to come with hand crank windows as well. The crank window just won't completely disappear, it seems like.
Ultimately, people vote with their wallets, and those types of cars don't sell well (in the US).
This is the reasoning that’s usually given, but I see so many of these now-mostly-discontinued smaller models all over the place when I’m out that I have to wonder how true it is. Fits, Matrixes (Matrices?), Bolts, Focuses, Mirages, Elements, and 500/500e’s are all regular sights.
Maybe it’s regional. I could definitely see small practical cars being more popular in pacific coast states, the whole big SUV/truck machismo thing isn’t as omnipresent in urban areas out here.
It's not that compact cars don't sell well, it's that they're not as profitable for automakers and market conditions have been favorable for financing the largest cars people can afford. Every time inflation and interest rates surge, lower-priced compact car demand rises.
And let's have some incentives for places like apartment complexes to start installing chargers.
https://archive.is/zt8wE#selection-1551.0-1551.68
From the article:
...
...
...
I’d note that BYD has a 50% tariff on its cars in Europe. That it’s competitive at all while forking over 50% of the cost of the vehicle to taxes is insane.
One thing making people hesitant about new cars is the built in spyware.
I wonder how Chinese manufactured cars will play into that. Another TikTok banning bruhaha?
I got bad news for those people. All other cars have built in spyware too.
Not my 2011 RAV4!
I miss my 2009 Sienna. Sadly when it came close to 165k it started making deathknell noises.
Damn - and I here I thought that 2010 Toyota's were good until 400k.
In the car's defense, it was like 95% city miles, with a huge number of 'not enough time to warm the engine' trips.
I didn't get it until it had 120k on it, so I have 0 idea how well the previous owners maintained, but I probably was not doing nearly enough.
The main reason I got rid of it is because it was during the firestorm of used vans going for way over resale (and worried the Ukraine war was gonna drive gas over $5/gallon) , and used that to step up to a hybrid RAV4. Other than going from 15 mpg to 30+, I regret.
I’ve been thinking about selling my 2006 sienna that just crossed 100k miles and getting something newer with better mileage, and it’s really hard to give up how convenient the Sienna is.
This chain’s definitely going to give me more hesitation about getting rid of it before it develops any actual issues.
It's no big deal: /s
Uh, unless you're making babies in the back seat, how does your car track your 'sexual activity'?
If you read the policy as it was written in 2023, it was right in there:
And this one:
Does it really matter how if they feel the need to spell it out? Odds are it's collected from other data broker and cross-referenced. Hence how they think they can devine a profile about you.
The new policy has been significantly reworded, probably as a response to this. But I'd bet money the internal workings are the same.
If you drive to a date in your car, or drive to a one-night stand, presumably.
Not such bad news, many people are holding onto their old cars until the day the laws change in regards to spyware in cars.
Hi skybrian
I can see that B is at start of headline..
BYD’s aggressive push is setting baseline for what an EV should cost
And t is the 68th letter.
Hence the 0 and 68 in your link...
https://archive.is/zt8wE#selection-1551.0-1551.68
So my browser scrolls to that headline and highlights those 68 letters.
This link does it for just first three letters BYD...
https://archive.is/zt8wE#selection-1551.0-1551.3
That's smart.
But where does the 1551 come from?
And did you calculate this selection yourself counting on your fingers, or was it generated by your browser?
(Scroll to Text Fragments feature or similar).
Chrome sometimes automatically adds the current selection to URL’s. I usually delete it, but this time I forgot.
"I forgot"
OK, gottit. Thanks. ;-)
Ah, yes, the Walmart/Uber strategy. Drop prices way below competitors, then raise them back to normal or higher once the competition is gone.
That was already happening since they are heavily subsidized by the government. It's part of the reason they're tariffed so heavily since it's unfair competition.
I doubt it. The reason why Chinese carmakers rose so fast is because the Chinese auto market is a fiercely competitive crucible.
To raise prices is to concede ground to other Chinese carmakers.
I remember seeing something about the EU and China being in negotiations to let China sell EVs in Europe. The article I read it in was discussing this possibility as the final nail in the coffin for Tesla's EU business.
I'd certainly take China spyware over Tesla fascism