GM Is Pushing Hard to Tank California's EV Mandate(wsj.com)
wsj.com
GM Is Pushing Hard to Tank California's EV Mandate
https://www.wsj.com/business/autos/california-ev-mandate-auto-industry-64708033
121 comments
100% this
I noted below that I have recently moved from US to Australia
The Chinese cars are taking over here: it’s a product people want at a price they like
GM wants to monetize yesterday’s market, and are just going to fall farther behind.
When these cars eventually come in, EV mandate or not, the US car companies will get crushed
I noted below that I have recently moved from US to Australia
The Chinese cars are taking over here: it’s a product people want at a price they like
GM wants to monetize yesterday’s market, and are just going to fall farther behind.
When these cars eventually come in, EV mandate or not, the US car companies will get crushed
> The Chinese cars are taking over here: it’s a product people want at a price they like
If you can hazard a guess, which make and model is the “Tesla killer” for EVs, if such a car exists.
I frequently suggest to folks in the US (where I’m from) that BYDs in the US would change the competitive landscape, but I can’t reliably point to a make/model or two that they can check out online.
If you can hazard a guess, which make and model is the “Tesla killer” for EVs, if such a car exists.
I frequently suggest to folks in the US (where I’m from) that BYDs in the US would change the competitive landscape, but I can’t reliably point to a make/model or two that they can check out online.
Honestly sort of all of them.
The Seal looks almost exactly like a Model 3 with better range Atto/Sealion are the SUV shapes that barely exist as EVs in US (Equinox maybe)
The Seal looks almost exactly like a Model 3 with better range Atto/Sealion are the SUV shapes that barely exist as EVs in US (Equinox maybe)
It's worth mentioning Harley Davidson here too.
They basically did the same thing but with foreign motorcycles. Harley lobbied haaaarrddd to get restrictions put on them. Harley got their way and still screwed it up, which left Americans paying more. Harley just declares bankruptcy and starts over cuz their cult of boomers will always buy a new hog with lots of chrome and saddlebags.
They basically did the same thing but with foreign motorcycles. Harley lobbied haaaarrddd to get restrictions put on them. Harley got their way and still screwed it up, which left Americans paying more. Harley just declares bankruptcy and starts over cuz their cult of boomers will always buy a new hog with lots of chrome and saddlebags.
[deleted]
> A GM spokeswoman said the company has long argued that the U.S. should have a single emissions mandate and that any regulations should factor in market demand.
Yes, let us stipulate that uniform regulations that disregard the federalist design of the constitution are more convenient and profitable for huge corporations with top flight lobbyists to write the one law to be enforced from sea to shining sea.
Yes, let us stipulate that uniform regulations that disregard the federalist design of the constitution are more convenient and profitable for huge corporations with top flight lobbyists to write the one law to be enforced from sea to shining sea.
> Rep. Laura Gillen, a Democrat from New York, one of the states to adopt the mandate, said she supports the goal of reducing emissions but that the timeline is “out-of-touch with reality” and an undue burden on consumers facing a cost-of-living crisis.
US consumers are facing hardship directly caused by overtly erratic tariffing. US ICE makers are seeking protections. Consumers will not have smaller vehicles nor the affordable EVs they could use.
The air and water are fine, we never pollute, climate change is a silly leftist slogan, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
US consumers are facing hardship directly caused by overtly erratic tariffing. US ICE makers are seeking protections. Consumers will not have smaller vehicles nor the affordable EVs they could use.
The air and water are fine, we never pollute, climate change is a silly leftist slogan, and Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
If the EV mandate is killed, I could see the California state government making that case before the courts.
California should just place an excise carbon tax on gas and diesel cars.
How about $100/ton of CO2.
At 30 mpg that's 60 tons of CO2 so $6k.
How about $100/ton of CO2.
At 30 mpg that's 60 tons of CO2 so $6k.
Why on cars? If carbon emissions are the problem, why not tax fossil fuels themselves (or tax them more if emissions are still too high)?
Why should we punish someone that bought a car before EV's were commonly available? That's punishing people after the fact. Which is morally wrong.
The fundamental idea is the state doesn't actually want the money. It wants manufactures to stop making cars that emit CO2. If someone already has a car like that perhaps the state can buy it back.
The fundamental idea is the state doesn't actually want the money. It wants manufactures to stop making cars that emit CO2. If someone already has a car like that perhaps the state can buy it back.
I thought the fundamental idea was to reduce carbon emissions. If the state doesn’t want the money, it can reduce plenty other taxes or debt. Or provide more services.
All solutions other than punishing fossil fuel use seem like “I want to feel like I did something, but not actually make any sacrifice” solutions so the public doesn’t revolt. See also plastic recycling.
The standard response here is “well what about poor people?”
And the standard response to that is “if a different fundamental problem is some people are too poor, then give them cash”
Less obfuscation and more transparency is always better.
All solutions other than punishing fossil fuel use seem like “I want to feel like I did something, but not actually make any sacrifice” solutions so the public doesn’t revolt. See also plastic recycling.
The standard response here is “well what about poor people?”
And the standard response to that is “if a different fundamental problem is some people are too poor, then give them cash”
Less obfuscation and more transparency is always better.
When someone buys a car that uses gasoline or diesel they just commuted to dumping 50 to 100 tons of CO2 into the air.
Putting an excise tax on those cars tilts the decision to buy gas vs electric strongly away from gas. Which is what you want. The other thing is it sends a very strong signal to manufacturers that they need to stop producing them. Remember the cost of carbon taxes isn't something they pay. The consumer most of whom suck at accounting are the ones.
And punishing people that bought a gas car ten years ago is pointless and immoral. Because they already bought it. And they did so in good faith.
Putting an excise tax on those cars tilts the decision to buy gas vs electric strongly away from gas. Which is what you want. The other thing is it sends a very strong signal to manufacturers that they need to stop producing them. Remember the cost of carbon taxes isn't something they pay. The consumer most of whom suck at accounting are the ones.
And punishing people that bought a gas car ten years ago is pointless and immoral. Because they already bought it. And they did so in good faith.
Just put a vehicle registration fee equivalent to the lifetime carbon tax on new ICE cars sold after a given deadline. After X years, start charging the carbon tax on registration fees for older cars as well if a car’s ownership is transferred. Use revenue from those fees for buybacks.
Fuel should be heavily taxed to encourage better mpg and less driving.
One approach is to balance the tax with a mileage deduction.
No increased cost for existing owners, but still an incentive to replace the car for a lower emission one
No increased cost for existing owners, but still an incentive to replace the car for a lower emission one
> California should just place an excise carbon tax on gas and diesel cars.
They already have cap-and-trade:
* https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/
* https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-progr...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif...
They already have cap-and-trade:
* https://www.c2es.org/content/california-cap-and-trade/
* https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/cap-and-trade-progr...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_policy_of_Calif...
State regulations for such things are silly, you can’t have a product being legal in one state and not in another the US has a single market.
Well, you can actually. That's how it works legally. It may be silly, but that's literally how it works.
[deleted]
Why is it silly though?
It's certainly logistically complex and you're going to lose a lot of money just to handling regulations. This is generally why I'm in favor of greater federal protections and less per-state regulation. It has a lot of unintended consequences.
Also, companies are greedy. They can, and will, just move and leave you high and dry, if you regulate at the source (manufacturing). So you have to not regulate at the source, which is kind of worse. It leads to a lot of tragedy of the commons situations. Maybe Company X is poisoning the water supply and State Y says "no more!". They just move to Texas or some other state that doesn't give a fuck about it's residents and continue poisoning the water supply. State Y will still be affected, maybe they drink from the same water shed. And State Y is also economically harmed, while Texas comes out ahead.
Also, companies are greedy. They can, and will, just move and leave you high and dry, if you regulate at the source (manufacturing). So you have to not regulate at the source, which is kind of worse. It leads to a lot of tragedy of the commons situations. Maybe Company X is poisoning the water supply and State Y says "no more!". They just move to Texas or some other state that doesn't give a fuck about it's residents and continue poisoning the water supply. State Y will still be affected, maybe they drink from the same water shed. And State Y is also economically harmed, while Texas comes out ahead.
Because the US has a single market, what’s next you can’t drive to California because your car isn’t compatible?
Have you tried to carry a firearm across the country lately?
Or contraception?
Or contraception?
I think those are silly also but it’s really not the same thing. You don’t need to carry a gun, or contraception a car on the other hand is considerably more critical
That's a matter of degree / subjective preference that I bet doesn't translate very well to legal precedent. If you say "What's next, a state can bar me from entry because they don't like something I'm bringing with" the answer is a resounding "Well I think they already do that".
It depends on your view of who should have the most say...state gov or federal gov
Conservatives flip on this depending on who is in the White House. Right now, the fed should run everything. Should Dems take back the White House then they will be back to supporting states' rights.
There will be bipartisan support for this (only 164 Ds voted against repeal in the house) - as long as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Illinois matter, California's EV mandate will be undermined.
Neither party dares alienate the UAW or Teamsters, and thousands of automotive employees.
HN needs to reconcile whether they support unions or whether they support EVs. It's a one or the other decision at this point in the US.
Amongst the younger (Gen Z/Gen Alpha) generations, the choice is unions due to idealism (despite havint positive sentiment for EVs). Amongst high earning members of Gen X (which I think seems to represent HN), the choice appears to be EVs.
Neither party dares alienate the UAW or Teamsters, and thousands of automotive employees.
HN needs to reconcile whether they support unions or whether they support EVs. It's a one or the other decision at this point in the US.
Amongst the younger (Gen Z/Gen Alpha) generations, the choice is unions due to idealism (despite havint positive sentiment for EVs). Amongst high earning members of Gen X (which I think seems to represent HN), the choice appears to be EVs.
I have recently moved from US to Australia and it is 100% clear to me the US automakers will get absolutely crushed by the Chinese companies if/when they are able to access US market.
Especially EVs and PHEVs. This place is awash with them, they are cars people want at the right price.
Especially EVs and PHEVs. This place is awash with them, they are cars people want at the right price.
> Even in California, America’s EV market leader, sales are below the state’s own targets. Under the rule, in 2026, sales of zero-emissions vehicles should account for 35% of all vehicle sales. Right now, they account for 20% of the state’s automobile market.
Yikes. Sounds like if this mandate doesn’t get changed, Californians are staring down the barrel of a huge car buying crunch in ~7yrs, as people realize they only have a few more years to buy a gas vehicle.
I’m a fan of EVs - I think every family should have one or two, but I’d also never want to be without a gas vehicle. Not having the option to buy one under any circumstances is pretty onerous.
Yikes. Sounds like if this mandate doesn’t get changed, Californians are staring down the barrel of a huge car buying crunch in ~7yrs, as people realize they only have a few more years to buy a gas vehicle.
I’m a fan of EVs - I think every family should have one or two, but I’d also never want to be without a gas vehicle. Not having the option to buy one under any circumstances is pretty onerous.
> Californians are staring down the barrel of a huge car buying crunch in ~7yrs
Yay the free market, hey?
Yay the free market, hey?
PHEV should be the intermediary solution IMO. It neatly solves 80% of the issues of owning either one or the other.
Should have been. 15 years ago. We’re long past that point.
The automakers in the US mostly want to fight a war two wars ago. They’re careening towards international irrelevance fast with this crap.
And we’ll either be dominated by the players that saw the truth, or stuck with overpriced protectionist crap.
The automakers in the US mostly want to fight a war two wars ago. They’re careening towards international irrelevance fast with this crap.
And we’ll either be dominated by the players that saw the truth, or stuck with overpriced protectionist crap.
The US is certainly not "long past that point" in terms of charging infrastructure. So on their home turf, EV-only is a losing proposition.
Which may drive them towards international irrelevance, but if they have to sacrifice one market or the other, that seems like the easier one to choose to lose.
Which may drive them towards international irrelevance, but if they have to sacrifice one market or the other, that seems like the easier one to choose to lose.
It’s long past the point hybrids were a good solution for the majority of cars. They were a good idea to start phasing in 20 years ago, when the Republicans decided that they were proof you were a tree hugger ivory palace stuck up asshole for even considering them.
So we completely missed the entire thing. They were a never very big part of the market. And now people are saying we should transition to the thing that we should have been transitioning off of.
California didn’t mandate EV only tomorrow. No sane person has mandated EV only in the US that soon.
The chose 10 years from now.
People vastly underestimate how much progress we can make in a relatively short time without massive individual improvements. People always think the future is much further out than it actually is, but when we look back it seems like things happened in a snap. Because we always underestimate ourselves.
Every time infrastructure gets better, it enables more EVs. Every time battery technology gets better, it enables more EVs.
It’s doable. Other countries are showing it can be done. If we get 5 or 7 years from now and find out we need to extend the deadlines some they can do that.
Having the federal government come in and force a state to stick their head back in the sand until the political winds change doesn’t help anyone.
Remember: states rights if we’re out of power, federalism if we’re not.
So we completely missed the entire thing. They were a never very big part of the market. And now people are saying we should transition to the thing that we should have been transitioning off of.
California didn’t mandate EV only tomorrow. No sane person has mandated EV only in the US that soon.
The chose 10 years from now.
People vastly underestimate how much progress we can make in a relatively short time without massive individual improvements. People always think the future is much further out than it actually is, but when we look back it seems like things happened in a snap. Because we always underestimate ourselves.
Every time infrastructure gets better, it enables more EVs. Every time battery technology gets better, it enables more EVs.
It’s doable. Other countries are showing it can be done. If we get 5 or 7 years from now and find out we need to extend the deadlines some they can do that.
Having the federal government come in and force a state to stick their head back in the sand until the political winds change doesn’t help anyone.
Remember: states rights if we’re out of power, federalism if we’re not.
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they've tried everything else.
I'm sorry MBCook but this is Murica. We're different. We don't have to do it that commie way because we can do it with the sturs and strips. /s
I'm sorry MBCook but this is Murica. We're different. We don't have to do it that commie way because we can do it with the sturs and strips. /s
This is why the automakers will win. People are turning on Tesla. And the rest of automakers offerings aren’t half as good. Automakers can put on the squeeze now by just continuing to let this market segment languish and then the legislature will have to do something in 2035 when not near enough people are switching to EV and there hasn’t been near enough infrastructure built due to the segment underperforming expectations and not getting sufficient infrastructure investment.
It was one thing to mandate emissions when it was just a question of a cleaner gas car. We are retooling with evs effectively. I think the legislature bit off more than they can chew with this unless they start heavily subsidizing this industry themselves maybe even making a public ev company. Hard to do in times of austerity when everything that presently exists is in need of money let alone new expensive ideas.
It was one thing to mandate emissions when it was just a question of a cleaner gas car. We are retooling with evs effectively. I think the legislature bit off more than they can chew with this unless they start heavily subsidizing this industry themselves maybe even making a public ev company. Hard to do in times of austerity when everything that presently exists is in need of money let alone new expensive ideas.
> And the rest of automakers offerings aren’t half as good.
This was true maybe even as recently as 5 years ago, but it certainly isn’t true now.
Tesla, at the top end, hasn’t been an attractive luxury proposition at least since the Hyundai Genesis & Mercedes EVs started rolling out. They had a shot at capturing the mid- to low-end market, but it looks like they’re in the process of blowing that as well.
> Hard to do in times of austerity [..]
The average American’s lifestyle is hardly austere — it _is_ precarious for very many (most?), but I don’t think that’s the same thing.
You can now get refurb EVs (e.g. a Hyundai Ionia) with <50k miles for <$15k, and that’s in a not-inexpensive part of the US (northeast).
Over the course of the next 10 years that used market is going to only grow, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that a battery swap will be less costly than the sorts of overhauls high-mileage gasoline cars require so there _will_ be a solid used market.
This was true maybe even as recently as 5 years ago, but it certainly isn’t true now.
Tesla, at the top end, hasn’t been an attractive luxury proposition at least since the Hyundai Genesis & Mercedes EVs started rolling out. They had a shot at capturing the mid- to low-end market, but it looks like they’re in the process of blowing that as well.
> Hard to do in times of austerity [..]
The average American’s lifestyle is hardly austere — it _is_ precarious for very many (most?), but I don’t think that’s the same thing.
You can now get refurb EVs (e.g. a Hyundai Ionia) with <50k miles for <$15k, and that’s in a not-inexpensive part of the US (northeast).
Over the course of the next 10 years that used market is going to only grow, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that a battery swap will be less costly than the sorts of overhauls high-mileage gasoline cars require so there _will_ be a solid used market.
The austerity I refer to is in government budgets in california and its municipalities.
The fact that the existing automakers do not have competitive offerings when the model S came out in 2012 is entirely their own fault. For not figuring out where the wind is blowing and massively reorganizing their entire company, they deserve to die to Tesla, BYD, Xpeng, Nio, and everyone else who figured out how to build a usable EV. They could’ve also built charging infrastructure at their own expense, like Tesla did before the charging infrastructure tax credits.
Well this isn’t a nation that lets its automakers die. We bail them out and let their lobbyists craft almost all relevant legislation.
I hope they don’t get bailed out, UAW and manufacturers alike need a wake up call about their relationship with EVs and automation
I was in Beijing last year. Many, many EVs on the road, far more than the Bay Area. About half of China's Market is EV's now[1]
The Chinese Government backed up their mandate with money. Lots of money, allocated well, over a long period of time. In the absence of that sustained political will, I think this initiative would have succumbed the infighting and finger-pointing that the article above describes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_industry_in_C...
The Chinese Government backed up their mandate with money. Lots of money, allocated well, over a long period of time. In the absence of that sustained political will, I think this initiative would have succumbed the infighting and finger-pointing that the article above describes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_industry_in_C...
We can’t keep kicking this can down the road. We are going to have to transition away from ICE vehicles and we should do it asap. At the very least sales of new ICE vehicles should be banned; people can keep their grandfathered ones as long as they work.
Unless we also significantly improve charging infrastructure, and more importantly, disallow grandfathering of the lack of charging infrastructure, that's going to be a very difficult sell. If you live in an apartment, you probably do not have reliable charging access at home. Newer buildings might have some charging spots, but you would need _all_ parking spots to have it available. Older apartments would need to somehow retrofit charging infrastructure as well, and it can't just be giving every parking spot access to a 120v socket. In a similar vein, not everyone has the ability to charge at work either, whether due to a lack of infrastructure, or their employer not being willing to pay for the electricity or the cost to install metered chargers.
Chargers also need to get much, much faster; 15 minutes for 80% might be fine if you're at a charging station that doesn't get that much traffic, but think of somewhere like the Costco gas stations. Imagine accommodating that many people charging for 15 minutes at a time instead of 3-5 minutes at a time. Not everyone can afford to spend that much time on charging their car.
There's also the fun bit about how charging an EV in some places is more expensive per mile than an ICE car, though that does often depends on the time of day you charge and what the exact price of gas is.
Chargers also need to get much, much faster; 15 minutes for 80% might be fine if you're at a charging station that doesn't get that much traffic, but think of somewhere like the Costco gas stations. Imagine accommodating that many people charging for 15 minutes at a time instead of 3-5 minutes at a time. Not everyone can afford to spend that much time on charging their car.
There's also the fun bit about how charging an EV in some places is more expensive per mile than an ICE car, though that does often depends on the time of day you charge and what the exact price of gas is.
You can give every parking spot a 15 amp 120v and it would fit more ~95% of driving use cases. Even more likely in urban areas. Average daily round trip commutes are 52 minutes (approx < 30 miles)
You also don't need to have every parking spot to have an outlet, that is not the status quo; if 50% of vehicles charge at single/multi-family homes and 50% charge 2-3x a week at a fast charger for 15 minutes; then that's the best chance for local gas stations to stay in business (local stations are going to struggle if the 20% rate of EV purchases and everybody has a non gas station outlet continues)
You also don't need to have every parking spot to have an outlet, that is not the status quo; if 50% of vehicles charge at single/multi-family homes and 50% charge 2-3x a week at a fast charger for 15 minutes; then that's the best chance for local gas stations to stay in business (local stations are going to struggle if the 20% rate of EV purchases and everybody has a non gas station outlet continues)
You would have to provide every parking spot an outlet unless you're willing to deal with having to potentially reshuffle renters' parking spots whenever someone needs one with an outlet. A lot of apartments also have outdoor or carport parking, which means the outlets are easily accessible to others. You can mitigate that somewhat by putting locks on them, but that's only useful when they're not being used. When in used they will by necessity need to be unlocked and can then be hijacked by someone else. You would also have the massive capital outlay from the owner(s) to install the infrastructure, since it will be a significant amount of electricity that is being used, and will thus need to be attached to each units' electrical meter. Not every building may have room for adding that kind of service as well, plenty of older apartment buildings that are maxed out on how many amps each unit gets. I've lived in places where I had to choose between running the heater or running the stove because both at the same time would blow the master breakers. And even if that's not the case, the building/complex as a whole may not be able to install even 50% outlets that support the full 15A. In a 100 unit building, even with just a single spot per unit, if half those spots add 15A per spot, the incoming service from the street may not be able to handle that without upgrades either; another massive capital outlay that no one will want to do unless forced to.
I think there are too many edge cases to outright ban ICE cars so soon. That's why I say that there needs to be a push to also improve infrastructure, including forcing older infrastructure to also be improved. It can be done, but with the scope of the problem, it will not be nearly as soon as the proposed bans would have taken effect. It would also take probably an impossible amount of political will. You'd have to grab the proverbial third rail and hang on long enough to make things happen before it fries you, but fry you it will.
I think there are too many edge cases to outright ban ICE cars so soon. That's why I say that there needs to be a push to also improve infrastructure, including forcing older infrastructure to also be improved. It can be done, but with the scope of the problem, it will not be nearly as soon as the proposed bans would have taken effect. It would also take probably an impossible amount of political will. You'd have to grab the proverbial third rail and hang on long enough to make things happen before it fries you, but fry you it will.
I think you missed my "also".
Anecdotally, I lived in a condo in Atlanta (not traditionally known for its car independence) for 10 years, extremely convenient to the metro or walking a mile to work; it was often that I didn't drive my car for 1-2 weeks at a time and a concern that gas in my vehicle was 2 months old.
In that, very real scenario, I would have required a 200 mile range car to be charged about once a month - or prior to and after a major trip - something that off site handles well + super chargers, and to your and my points, readily available central charging at gas stations.
Anecdotally, I lived in a condo in Atlanta (not traditionally known for its car independence) for 10 years, extremely convenient to the metro or walking a mile to work; it was often that I didn't drive my car for 1-2 weeks at a time and a concern that gas in my vehicle was 2 months old.
In that, very real scenario, I would have required a 200 mile range car to be charged about once a month - or prior to and after a major trip - something that off site handles well + super chargers, and to your and my points, readily available central charging at gas stations.
I'm thinking more of people living in an apartment in a little town of 10000 people surrounded by 30mi of farmland in all directions. Something like the central valley in CA, or maybe some of the hill/mountain towns in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains. Even in CA where the vast majority of the state's population lives in the LA, SF or Sacramento metros where you could potentially avoid the need for a car on most days, there are still millions of people who live in these smaller places where without much improved EV infrastructure, you would be severely limited being forced to have an EV vs an ICE car.
Yes ban them so new cars are even more out of reach for many (the cheapest electric cars are too expensive still and might not come with enough base range for long commuters).
And those low earners will keep driving their shit boxes.
What got me to give up my ‘98 emission hog wasn’t electric because they were too expensive. It was a rebate for taking old cars off the road and a cheap combustion civic. Ban those civics and I’d still be driving something horrendous for the environment.
And those low earners will keep driving their shit boxes.
What got me to give up my ‘98 emission hog wasn’t electric because they were too expensive. It was a rebate for taking old cars off the road and a cheap combustion civic. Ban those civics and I’d still be driving something horrendous for the environment.
> We are going to have to transition away from ICE vehicles and we should do it asap
How do you do so without making the party that passes such legislation politically toxic for a generation? Heck, 49 Dems broke ranks and voted in favor of repealing California's waiver in the House.
Plug-in Hybrids and EVs require significantly less parts and have fairly automated manufacturing processes, so thousands of voters will lose jobs.
This is why you see the UAW and Teamsters leadership back the incumbent admin.
How do you do so without making the party that passes such legislation politically toxic for a generation? Heck, 49 Dems broke ranks and voted in favor of repealing California's waiver in the House.
Plug-in Hybrids and EVs require significantly less parts and have fairly automated manufacturing processes, so thousands of voters will lose jobs.
This is why you see the UAW and Teamsters leadership back the incumbent admin.
> Plug-in Hybrids and EVs require significantly less parts
PHEVs definitely do not require fewer parts - they’re more complex to build, maintain, and repair. You take an ICE vehicle annd add a big battery, a motor, a complex way of interfacing that motor with the existing drivetrain, and additional computers to manage it all.
PHEVs definitely do not require fewer parts - they’re more complex to build, maintain, and repair. You take an ICE vehicle annd add a big battery, a motor, a complex way of interfacing that motor with the existing drivetrain, and additional computers to manage it all.
The law is an absurd overreach. The EV demand isn’t there, although it’s growing. There will be political consequences for trying to ram it through.
Well if the demand isn't there then I suppose there's no need to have a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs, right?
The reality is the legislation was to push industry and it seems industries response was ‘nah dawg we’ll just lobby our way out of this one’
The reality is the legislation was to push industry and it seems industries response was ‘nah dawg we’ll just lobby our way out of this one’
The people of California voted for it (through their representatives).
They’re free to change it at any time.
It’s not the federal government’s job to mess with it just because it doesn’t align with head-in-the-sand worldview on electric vehicles.
California didn’t mandate anything for any other state. The fact the automakers don’t want to bother to implement “the winning strategy” for every other state of pretending EVs suck either indicates it’s a terrible strategy or they think there is a benefit to their bottom line to follow demand.
How horrible!
They’re free to change it at any time.
It’s not the federal government’s job to mess with it just because it doesn’t align with head-in-the-sand worldview on electric vehicles.
California didn’t mandate anything for any other state. The fact the automakers don’t want to bother to implement “the winning strategy” for every other state of pretending EVs suck either indicates it’s a terrible strategy or they think there is a benefit to their bottom line to follow demand.
How horrible!
The representatives of the people of California make many inane and destructive decisions, of which this is one. Once the consequences start to bite, they may come to regret it, and I hope they do.
RAM IT THROUGH! Like a drunk ram 2500 driver lol.
This is all so stupid. If we want to move people to EVs, put incrementally severe taxes on gasoline. "Mandates" without economic incentive are pure nonsense.
That creates a whole different problem. Gasoline taxes are a major contributor to infrastructure. If everyone moves to EVs, we need a an alternative, like a mileage tax.
What we need is fewer roads to maintain, but as you say a whole different problem.
It took a while to find numbers, but it seems like ~$80B in total gas taxes in a year is probably close. Meanwhile state and local governments (alone) spend over $200B on road maintenance and construction while the federal government spent about $60B on the interstates.
$80B is a lot, but if gas taxes covered even just car infrastructure it'd be an extra $1 a gallon already. Even without EVs. In case anyone was under the misapprehension that roads are budget neutral. Frustrating (to get more off track) that other transit is expected to somehow be profitable when roads are subsidized so heavily. I wish it wasn't so critical for our supply chain, EV trucks probably works a lot better between a train terminal and final destination than it does hauling across I-40.
Sources:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline...
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/D...
It took a while to find numbers, but it seems like ~$80B in total gas taxes in a year is probably close. Meanwhile state and local governments (alone) spend over $200B on road maintenance and construction while the federal government spent about $60B on the interstates.
$80B is a lot, but if gas taxes covered even just car infrastructure it'd be an extra $1 a gallon already. Even without EVs. In case anyone was under the misapprehension that roads are budget neutral. Frustrating (to get more off track) that other transit is expected to somehow be profitable when roads are subsidized so heavily. I wish it wasn't so critical for our supply chain, EV trucks probably works a lot better between a train terminal and final destination than it does hauling across I-40.
Sources:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/use-of-gasoline...
https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-03/D...
Oh wow I've never thought of it the way you did, that roads are subsidized so heavily vs public transit being expected to break even.
That's a great take. Thanks.
That's a great take. Thanks.
I think the argument is that roads contribute more to the overall economy than public transit.
And the counterpoint (not even an argument, you're simply correct) is that it doesn't have to be that way, trains used to handle all cross country shipping and could still for a lot more than they do.
We have the tools to do better, and a lot of these roads are going to be a giant maintenance burden that communities literally cannot afford. So you end up with bridges collapsing and roads going without any repairs for years. This is a huge problem that gets worse the more we build roads instead of building alternatives.
But yes, I agree with you that the reason it's subsidized is because of things like supporting USPS delivery and commuting being economically mandatory. And because voters mostly drive cars and are used to not paying for their roads.
I don't like that design, I am 100% certain that we are clever enough to do better, but I do recognize it is the sunk-cost prison we are stuck in.
Of course, the actual counterargument is that transit moving people around -- largely to work and shop -- is also contributing to the economy. So why would you charge a fare at all?
We have the tools to do better, and a lot of these roads are going to be a giant maintenance burden that communities literally cannot afford. So you end up with bridges collapsing and roads going without any repairs for years. This is a huge problem that gets worse the more we build roads instead of building alternatives.
But yes, I agree with you that the reason it's subsidized is because of things like supporting USPS delivery and commuting being economically mandatory. And because voters mostly drive cars and are used to not paying for their roads.
I don't like that design, I am 100% certain that we are clever enough to do better, but I do recognize it is the sunk-cost prison we are stuck in.
Of course, the actual counterargument is that transit moving people around -- largely to work and shop -- is also contributing to the economy. So why would you charge a fare at all?
Definitely agree that it doesn’t have to be that way, but doesn’t the US already use rail for commerce at a much higher rate than other nations? Rail in the US is mostly freight, not public transit. I also believe the highway system provides more redundancy in terms of national security, because rail is has higher upfront costs, constraints, and less resiliency (but I could be wrong).
That is an entirely separate issue and would need to be addressed even if the mandates were to be magically effective.
It’s directly related to your point about increasing gas taxes as an incentive to build demand for EVs (and eventually reduce gas tax revenue). If it gets to the point where the only people paying gas taxes are ICE hobbyists, the scale won’t support the needs of infrastructure.
If you ban gas cars by mandating EVs you have the same problem. I don't see why this is relevant to the topic at hand.
My point is that if you want to shift the whole state from gas to electric vehicles, there's a smart way and a dumb way. California is picking the dumb way.
My point is that if you want to shift the whole state from gas to electric vehicles, there's a smart way and a dumb way. California is picking the dumb way.
>If you ban gas cars by mandating EVs you have the same problem
Yes.
The point is you shouldn’t trivialize the problem and need to account for second order effects. If you want to mandate EVs, fine, but now you have to solve the problem of reduced infrastructure funding when it’s already below sustainment levels. That doesn’t sound very smart, and you can’t just hand wave the problem away. Other people in the thread have pointed out it’s “dumb” to levy an EV tax without understanding they are related.
Yes.
The point is you shouldn’t trivialize the problem and need to account for second order effects. If you want to mandate EVs, fine, but now you have to solve the problem of reduced infrastructure funding when it’s already below sustainment levels. That doesn’t sound very smart, and you can’t just hand wave the problem away. Other people in the thread have pointed out it’s “dumb” to levy an EV tax without understanding they are related.
Find some other thread to argue that point in. It's not relevant in this thread, which leads with "If we want people to move to EVs..."
Your gatekeeping keeping is both unwarranted and against the HN guidelines of fostering curious conversation.
I don’t know if you’re being obtuse or discussing in bad-faith, but I’ll make the relevance explicit:
>"If we want people to move to EVs..."
…then we need to understand and address the positive and negative externalities. Those include the tax revenue lost from gasoline taxes.
I don’t know if you’re being obtuse or discussing in bad-faith, but I’ll make the relevance explicit:
>"If we want people to move to EVs..."
…then we need to understand and address the positive and negative externalities. Those include the tax revenue lost from gasoline taxes.
GM just making some fucking cars people want to buy. Nobody wants to look like a fat grandma driving a Tahoe or a racist uncle driving a Silverado lol.
I mean I wouldn't mind a corvette if they didn't cost 80 fucking thousand dollars.
I mean I wouldn't mind a corvette if they didn't cost 80 fucking thousand dollars.
Please have a look at the guidelines before posting:
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
California has proven time and again that they are great at economic regulation so I think we should just go with it.
>Warren Buffet doesn’t know how to manage his money
So isn't every other fossil fuel based transportation manf.
20 years ago this would upset me a lot.
Now I am resigned to the fact 2 or 3 generations from now people will live through a time that will make the mongol invasions look like a tea party ran by three 7 year old girls :(
No stopping Climate Change now
20 years ago this would upset me a lot.
Now I am resigned to the fact 2 or 3 generations from now people will live through a time that will make the mongol invasions look like a tea party ran by three 7 year old girls :(
No stopping Climate Change now
I am hopeful China’s EV, battery, and renewables manufacturing machine steamrolls the world. Developed world fossil fuel and legacy auto will try to slow down the transition, so only overwhelming force solves for it.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/byd-ai...
https://www.iea.org/news/more-than-1-in-4-cars-sold-worldwid...
https://about.bnef.com/blog/china-already-makes-as-many-batt...
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
Current US admin only has 3.6 years left, ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, etc. Maintain momentum, be ready to spin up faster after regime change.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/byd-ai...
https://www.iea.org/news/more-than-1-in-4-cars-sold-worldwid...
https://about.bnef.com/blog/china-already-makes-as-many-batt...
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
Current US admin only has 3.6 years left, ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, etc. Maintain momentum, be ready to spin up faster after regime change.
I have zero interest in an any car from an American company and by far the most exciting cars I have seen in recent years come from Chinese companies.
I’m excited about lower prices from Chinese brands. The hikes in car prices in the US over the last decade or so have priced me out of new cars entirely, and I just about get sick even looking at used car prices these days. Need some price pressure on that crap.
I’m pretty happy about being able to live in a place where we rarely need to drive. We have a car but basically just use it for grocery shopping. I dread the day it dies as my partner will want to get a new car and our options are going to suck.
Millennial here, 3x Trump voter.
"Current US admin only has 3.6 years left, ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, etc. Maintain momentum, be ready to spin up faster after regime change."
The majority of Boomers are liberal - the demographic shift you perceive is not going to work out the way you think it will. Gen-Z is increasingly leaning right, especially males.
Most people just want a 2018 era car (there's diminishing returns for vehicle technology at this point and average vehicle selling price trajectory, Post-Covid, is unsustainable) at a decent price - something with a six cylinder engine that can be easy serviced / repaired.
"Current US admin only has 3.6 years left, ~2M voters 55+ age out every year, etc. Maintain momentum, be ready to spin up faster after regime change."
The majority of Boomers are liberal - the demographic shift you perceive is not going to work out the way you think it will. Gen-Z is increasingly leaning right, especially males.
Most people just want a 2018 era car (there's diminishing returns for vehicle technology at this point and average vehicle selling price trajectory, Post-Covid, is unsustainable) at a decent price - something with a six cylinder engine that can be easy serviced / repaired.
> Most people just want a 2018 era car ... at a decent price - something with a six cylinder engine that can be easy serviced / repaired
I've talked to a lot of people about their cars and car choices over the years, and that's not what people want. You can look up some surveys too, although quite a few results are obviously from one survey, you can dig a bit deeper and find older survey results or segmented surveys. What people don't really mention: engine, maintenance, servicing. I think for most people those things aren't that big of a deal, modern cars have satisfactory performance and longevity when compared to cars pre-2000. What people say they want: heated seats and steering wheels, places to charge their phone(!), car play or android auto(!), space and safety for kids and dogs, something that looks nice.
I don't think price is a mentioned factor because right now it seems like you pay more for pretty arbitrary stuff.
I want what you want, with a manual transmission for preference. It's just not what most people want.
I've talked to a lot of people about their cars and car choices over the years, and that's not what people want. You can look up some surveys too, although quite a few results are obviously from one survey, you can dig a bit deeper and find older survey results or segmented surveys. What people don't really mention: engine, maintenance, servicing. I think for most people those things aren't that big of a deal, modern cars have satisfactory performance and longevity when compared to cars pre-2000. What people say they want: heated seats and steering wheels, places to charge their phone(!), car play or android auto(!), space and safety for kids and dogs, something that looks nice.
I don't think price is a mentioned factor because right now it seems like you pay more for pretty arbitrary stuff.
I want what you want, with a manual transmission for preference. It's just not what most people want.
Yeah, I have zero interest in an electric vehicle, nor a new ICE vehicle. They are all shit boxes designed to monetize everything they can from remote start, to your GPS location, to heated seats. No thanks, I'll take the 2004 Tacoma getting 16mpg that will run until the body rusts off.
[deleted]
So we shut off cheap EVs from China so American car makers can charge as much as they want without changing their behaviors.
America doesn't have competition. You're prices aren't going to get cheaper. Meanwhile in China internal competition in battery chemistry and packs has massively dropped costs.
It's sad when the groups we call commies have a more open market than us.
Unfortunately we're going to wake up to that too late.
America doesn't have competition. You're prices aren't going to get cheaper. Meanwhile in China internal competition in battery chemistry and packs has massively dropped costs.
It's sad when the groups we call commies have a more open market than us.
Unfortunately we're going to wake up to that too late.
Arbitraging US manufacturing to Asia and pocketing the profit has led to current predicament where we have an economy of healthcare workers, people in software, bartenders/service people barely scraping by, and skeleton crew of blue collar labor holding up domestic manufacturing. That manufacturing labor force makes make vastly lower wages than two generations prior. The vast majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck - again, this was a labor arbitrage facilitated by US Companies and politicians from both sides. This is where there is a bit of horseshoe effect between the left and right when it comes to labor/jobs/the economy.
America is a farm - the US consumer is the product. The only thing that has gotten cheaper over the last few decades are consumer goods from Asia. The US auto industry is more or less an oligopoly - none of the OEMS, outside of Tesla, are seriously interested in competing on price.
America is a farm - the US consumer is the product. The only thing that has gotten cheaper over the last few decades are consumer goods from Asia. The US auto industry is more or less an oligopoly - none of the OEMS, outside of Tesla, are seriously interested in competing on price.
Manufacturing jobs aren’t coming back, it’ll be automated primarily, and Americans don’t want to work the manufacturing jobs that already exist. You’re arguing for status based pay through work identity (“good manufacturing jobs”) when you should argue for living wages regardless of job, unions, and universal healthcare. 80% of US jobs are service based, that is unlikely to change, especially as healthcare grows with 4M Boomers retiring per year.
If American auto companies aren’t interested in building affordable EVs, why are we harming US consumers by preventing them from buying imported EVs? Because, as you said, farming profits for US legacy auto. I want to buy high quality, affordable Chinese products. I don’t want to buy lower quality US products solely because of cronyism and ideology to protect their profits using trade policy.
https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-think-manufacturing-empl...
https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2025/05/13/g-s1-66...
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-tariffs-ma...
If American auto companies aren’t interested in building affordable EVs, why are we harming US consumers by preventing them from buying imported EVs? Because, as you said, farming profits for US legacy auto. I want to buy high quality, affordable Chinese products. I don’t want to buy lower quality US products solely because of cronyism and ideology to protect their profits using trade policy.
https://www.cato.org/blog/americans-think-manufacturing-empl...
https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2025/05/13/g-s1-66...
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-tariffs-ma...
If you pay them, they will come. No is going to work in a plant making $20/hr. There are no shortage of people trying to get into unionized / Big 3 US automotive OEM plants making $60-70K base, $100K if you work at a plant making an in-demand vehicle that's running three shifts/overtime, but those are only a handful of those right now.
You really are missing the forest for the trees with respect to cheap stuff from Asia and completely gutting our capacity to manufacturer from a national security standpoint, and totally ignore what effect the gutting has had on manufacturing in the other 50% of the Country living outside of metro areas.
It's nerd-sperging - "I want cheap shit but I don't want to think about the externalities like hundreds of thousands of people that live outside of metro areas overdosing on opioids because their way of a middle class life has been destroyed or national security, because I discounted / ignore them because I life in a perfect world where I just type on a keyboard all day and get paid more than 95% of Americans and I want a perfect EV."
Yeah I'm sure the Chinese will sell you cruise missiles when the time comes.
You really are missing the forest for the trees with respect to cheap stuff from Asia and completely gutting our capacity to manufacturer from a national security standpoint, and totally ignore what effect the gutting has had on manufacturing in the other 50% of the Country living outside of metro areas.
It's nerd-sperging - "I want cheap shit but I don't want to think about the externalities like hundreds of thousands of people that live outside of metro areas overdosing on opioids because their way of a middle class life has been destroyed or national security, because I discounted / ignore them because I life in a perfect world where I just type on a keyboard all day and get paid more than 95% of Americans and I want a perfect EV."
Yeah I'm sure the Chinese will sell you cruise missiles when the time comes.
The last administration fought for the greatest support package ever provided to rural Red America since the New Deal with the Inflation Reduction Act (putting renewables, battery, and EV manufacturing in their states), and these people still voted poorly. So, forgive me if I have no empathy for people who will vote the country into the ground. Let them pull bootstraps.
> Yeah I'm sure the Chinese will sell you cruise missiles when the time comes.
I support cultivating domestic high tech, high throughput manufacturing capacity, just with as few humans required as possible.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/03/clean-energy-gene...
https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/its-conservative-states-t...
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25042572/e2-clean-eco...
> Yeah I'm sure the Chinese will sell you cruise missiles when the time comes.
I support cultivating domestic high tech, high throughput manufacturing capacity, just with as few humans required as possible.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/03/clean-energy-gene...
https://www.latitudemedia.com/news/its-conservative-states-t...
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25042572/e2-clean-eco...
A Texas salesman discovers the truth about 'Made in the U.S.A': no one's buying - https://www.npr.org/2025/05/18/nx-s1-5399796/a-texas-salesma... - May 18th, 2025
A lot of people buy Jeep Wranglers (built in Toledo), Grand Cherokees (built in Detroit), Chevy Tahoes (Built in Arlington), Ford-150 (built in Dearborn Michigan).
You don't know what you're talking about.
You don't know what you're talking about.
You keep citing things as if you are trying to brute force something into existence - you have zero comprehension of the American consumer. You cannot pass a poorly named Inflation Reduction Act (which had the complete opposite effect btw) bill and reshape the consumption preferences of half the country for a consumer product that they have a strong 100+ year emotional connection to.
Half of the American consumers have _ZERO_ interest in EVs. Period. They don't want them. 77 Million of them voted for Trump. The other half are split between coastal tech bros that already have EVs, Boomers that buy PHEVs / EVs, and normal families that might be interested in EVs but after hearing the tradeoffs, decided to buy a Honda or Toyota because they're reasonably priced and reliable. From a OEM Product Planning standpoint trying to juggle the investment between ICE and EV (if you aren't Tesla) - this is the worst of all worlds. Tesla claims the vast majority of the EV marketplace and there isn't enough volume/interest to justify the billion+ investment in EV programs to pick up the scraps. No one has made money on EVs in the US except Tesla. That will continue to be true.
Oh, and whatever happened to the supposed massively deflationary pricing that was supposed to come to batteries? Turns out when you cordon off China from the supply chain and source materials from Australia and South America, you've completely lost any ability to continue to reduce battery prices.
This isn't China - you cannot mandate consumer preferences, although I'm sure you'd love to.
Half of the American consumers have _ZERO_ interest in EVs. Period. They don't want them. 77 Million of them voted for Trump. The other half are split between coastal tech bros that already have EVs, Boomers that buy PHEVs / EVs, and normal families that might be interested in EVs but after hearing the tradeoffs, decided to buy a Honda or Toyota because they're reasonably priced and reliable. From a OEM Product Planning standpoint trying to juggle the investment between ICE and EV (if you aren't Tesla) - this is the worst of all worlds. Tesla claims the vast majority of the EV marketplace and there isn't enough volume/interest to justify the billion+ investment in EV programs to pick up the scraps. No one has made money on EVs in the US except Tesla. That will continue to be true.
Oh, and whatever happened to the supposed massively deflationary pricing that was supposed to come to batteries? Turns out when you cordon off China from the supply chain and source materials from Australia and South America, you've completely lost any ability to continue to reduce battery prices.
This isn't China - you cannot mandate consumer preferences, although I'm sure you'd love to.
What’s your perspective on manufacturing capacity being necessary for national security?
The U.S. has moved to service jobs because they tend to have the highest margins and capitalism is going to do what capitalism does. That is, unless specific guardrails are enacted to protect other societal interests.
The U.S. has moved to service jobs because they tend to have the highest margins and capitalism is going to do what capitalism does. That is, unless specific guardrails are enacted to protect other societal interests.
That it’s important, but should be automated and understood to be cost inefficient. The cost inefficiency is a readiness premium. But when you have admin officials saying iPhone manufacturing is coming to the US, that isn’t what is being advocated for. China is the largest producer and buyer of industrial robotics for manufacturing, for example. They are built to build, this is not what the US is advocating for.
Do you think this admin would put the necessary guardrails on public private partnership manufacturing supply chain infra to prevent it from being strip mined or otherwise extracted for profit and not be available when needed? I do not, but I do support treating such manufacturing supply chains as critical national security interests. Maybe we’ll get another shot in a few years when competent folks are in control, but maybe not.
Do you think this admin would put the necessary guardrails on public private partnership manufacturing supply chain infra to prevent it from being strip mined or otherwise extracted for profit and not be available when needed? I do not, but I do support treating such manufacturing supply chains as critical national security interests. Maybe we’ll get another shot in a few years when competent folks are in control, but maybe not.
I agree with most everything you’ve said, but a lot of manufacturing for critical stuff is not automated in the mass-production sense. There are tons of small batch manufacturing in spaces like aerospace, electrical transmission, etc. that are probably considered critical and already difficult to get US companies to manufacture.
Agreed! But, again, I ask who is going to work these jobs if Americans have said they don’t want to? The labor market has been propped up by immigrants for the last half decade, and this admin is not friendly to immigrants. There are already not enough Americans who will work the manufacturing jobs that exist today (or the jobs going unfilled are outcompeted by higher wage service work).
Americans are cosplaying, they are not serious in this regard. If they were, they would be filling these jobs they say are so desperately needed, and manufacturers would pay whatever market clearing wage is required to fill said jobs. If they wanted good paying jobs today, they’d unionize. Way easier than waiting for manufacturing to come back (which will take years, if at all) and maybe have a shot at one of the few manufacturing jobs that are created.
China delivers results because they have the will to, Americans just want status and vibes.
(Purpose of the system is what it does, watch what people do not what they say, etc)
https://www.plantengineering.com/manufacturers-grapple-with-...
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/13/immigration-economy-jobs-gr...
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-wor...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Americans are cosplaying, they are not serious in this regard. If they were, they would be filling these jobs they say are so desperately needed, and manufacturers would pay whatever market clearing wage is required to fill said jobs. If they wanted good paying jobs today, they’d unionize. Way easier than waiting for manufacturing to come back (which will take years, if at all) and maybe have a shot at one of the few manufacturing jobs that are created.
China delivers results because they have the will to, Americans just want status and vibes.
(Purpose of the system is what it does, watch what people do not what they say, etc)
https://www.plantengineering.com/manufacturers-grapple-with-...
https://www.axios.com/2024/03/13/immigration-economy-jobs-gr...
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/08/us-labor-shortage-older-wor...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
>The labor market has been propped up by immigrants for the last half decade, and this admin is not friendly to immigrants
Illegal labor to boot. Huge percentages of construction jobs in the US are (or were) filled by illegal immigrants getting paid low wages. It's not clear how those will be filled in the short term.
Illegal labor to boot. Huge percentages of construction jobs in the US are (or were) filled by illegal immigrants getting paid low wages. It's not clear how those will be filled in the short term.
This is a thing that I've noticed that some folks just can't understand: Nobody is going to leave an inside job for an outside job.
At least not a meaningful amount of people.
I now have a great office job but I grew up farming, ranching, doing construction, roofing, worked at dairies so I've seen first hand who is working these jobs.
It's not white Americans. This is something some people just can't understand. They just don't seem to grasp that the folks doing these jobs are either temporary labor brought in from other countries or illegal immigrants. The reason is because there isn't enough domestic labor willing to do these jobs.
At least not a meaningful amount of people.
I now have a great office job but I grew up farming, ranching, doing construction, roofing, worked at dairies so I've seen first hand who is working these jobs.
It's not white Americans. This is something some people just can't understand. They just don't seem to grasp that the folks doing these jobs are either temporary labor brought in from other countries or illegal immigrants. The reason is because there isn't enough domestic labor willing to do these jobs.
The three sectors that are most at risk: construction, agriculture, and meat-packing. (I might also put in-home health aides in there). Ironically, these essentially subsidize the costs that Americans feel the most: food, housing, and healthcare.
To support your point further, I’ve worked in manufacturing and the there was a lot of competition to fill the well-paying union jobs. The low-pay non-union jobs, not so much. I also worked in automation, which turned lines that previously had a dozen jobs into lines that had a couple.
Bingo. If you pay them, they will come.
Worse than choosing to do nothing, people chose to fight those who tried to fix it. Everything that happens will be deserved.
Collective punishment was banned by reasonable humans for a reason.
Most of the people who will suffer have done nothing wrong.
Most of the people who will suffer have done nothing wrong.
We are all guilty in a way.
People don’t like what you’re saying even when it is the statement most likely to be true.
They can and the mandate but consume demand is under your control. If people buy EVs that matters. If enough buy EVs (which likely has happened) politicians dare not ban them.
Nobody is talking about banning EVs - what are you on about?
They’re already floating a $200 a year federal fee for EVs.
That’s minuscule compared to federal gas tax, which that fee intends to offset. EV owners pay no gas tax, gas taxes pay for roads, ergo EV owners should probably pay a tax toward road use somehow.
Depends on fuel milage and how much you drive but $200 is close to what an average driver would pay in gas tax
That is a next step. Some people are like that even if the media ignors them
In the '70s the US changed emission standards to be quite a bit more strict, as part of the Clean Air Act of 1970. The problem of smog in major cities was getting out of hand.
Also in the '70s there were periods of gas shortages and high prices due to world events that messed up oil markets, such as the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973 and the Iranian Revolution in 1979. This led to demand for more efficient cars.
US automakers were slow to respond. The often just retrofitted existing engines with emission control equipment that significantly lowered performance and reliability.
Japanese automakers, who at that time had only a small share of the US market and were not really taken seriously by most consumers, were also dealing with new strict emission standards in Japan. But they responded by quickly designing new engines designed with low emissions and better mileage. And they exported those cars to the US.
By the time US automakers finally started making new design decent low emission cars with better gas mileage instead of badly retrofitting existing designs those Japanese makers had established with the public a reputation for making reliable, efficient, low emissions, and affordable cars.
Some people said the Japanese cars were only affordable because of cheap labor in Japan. (Japan in the '70s was like China is today when it comes to manufacturing). But then the Japanese car companies started manufacturing many models in the US, showing that affordable, high quality, reliable cars that met emission standards and were efficient could be made with US labor.
I wonder if we are going to see the same thing with EVs?