A mechanic offered a reason why no one wants to work in the industry(motor1.com)
motor1.com
A mechanic offered a reason why no one wants to work in the industry
https://www.motor1.com/news/774805/ford-ceo-complains-shortage-mechanics/
289 comments
Wife's cousin is a GM mechanic, and similar to this, he explained how they game recalls/TSBs. When you have a recall/TSB, it's the same process where the manufacturer comes up with the amount that the dealer is paid to resolve. However, if the mechanics individually don't submit common problems, then it doesn't rise to the level of a recall/TSB and the dealership can bill T&M.
The specific example was a leak that was the shorting out of electric window motors due to rainwater leaking through the window. It was better for him to fix it by cutting up a plastic container and attaching it over the motor & getting hourly for it than it was for GM to tell the dealership "Here's the part, you get $8 to install it when the customer is subject to the TSB"
The specific example was a leak that was the shorting out of electric window motors due to rainwater leaking through the window. It was better for him to fix it by cutting up a plastic container and attaching it over the motor & getting hourly for it than it was for GM to tell the dealership "Here's the part, you get $8 to install it when the customer is subject to the TSB"
>This is particularly bad for Ford, since they currently lead the industry in recalls and warranty spend
Can confirm this. Just Traded in my Escape for a Toyota. I was tired of spending time and money on repairs on a mid range car with less than 65k miles.
Can confirm this. Just Traded in my Escape for a Toyota. I was tired of spending time and money on repairs on a mid range car with less than 65k miles.
I thought the same about Toyota being better quality, but I took delivery of a 2024 Sienna and it has had several visits to the dealership for warranty items. Not mechanical, but I still find them disconcerting since they could indicate a lack of QC. I'm sure you're aware of the major turbo QC problems Toyota has with the 3.4L twin turbo in the Tundra and Sequoia models. I think all automotive mfgrs are racing to the bottom when it comes to quality hoping that the world moves en masse to an AaaS model and stops holding on to them.
I'm still quite happy with my 2007 Sienna. Just clocked over 256k miles - 80k of which we have put on it. I replaced the alternator and starter, otherwise it's been a champ! Then again, I have zero context for the warranty items that were dealt with before we took ownership.
Maybe this is just survivorship bias of the used car market. When you see a vehicle with 180k miles that still runs great and looks to have been well taken care of, you're not seeing the dozens of others that were completely abused or neglected or let warranty items slip. There is a certain amount of filtering that has already gone on for a vehicle with that many miles on it that helps you avoid the real lemons or models with serious design flaws.
I sort of took the opposite route of most people. I got access to software developer money fairly early so was buying new (but practical) vehicles. I wasted so much money on new cars and still had to deal with warranty stuff and minor inconveniences and a shitty owner who doesn't take care of their vehicles. As I got older I've started buying the cheapest functional vehicle I could find that still had good maintenance history and zero accidents. I have had excellent results now that I'm doing the basics of care and maintenance. Part of me still wants the new toys. I'd love to have HUD speed limit and current speed projected for example. Vented and cooled seats would be amazing! I think the Ionic 5 N is the most tempted I've been by a new vehicle in a long time. But I haven't had a car note in over a decade and my insurance is dirt cheap on these very reliable but older vehicles.
Maybe this is just survivorship bias of the used car market. When you see a vehicle with 180k miles that still runs great and looks to have been well taken care of, you're not seeing the dozens of others that were completely abused or neglected or let warranty items slip. There is a certain amount of filtering that has already gone on for a vehicle with that many miles on it that helps you avoid the real lemons or models with serious design flaws.
I sort of took the opposite route of most people. I got access to software developer money fairly early so was buying new (but practical) vehicles. I wasted so much money on new cars and still had to deal with warranty stuff and minor inconveniences and a shitty owner who doesn't take care of their vehicles. As I got older I've started buying the cheapest functional vehicle I could find that still had good maintenance history and zero accidents. I have had excellent results now that I'm doing the basics of care and maintenance. Part of me still wants the new toys. I'd love to have HUD speed limit and current speed projected for example. Vented and cooled seats would be amazing! I think the Ionic 5 N is the most tempted I've been by a new vehicle in a long time. But I haven't had a car note in over a decade and my insurance is dirt cheap on these very reliable but older vehicles.
A friend with 4 children and not much money would search out used vehicles with 300,000kms with the reasoning that if the vehicle made it that far and was in an reasonable condition then he wouldn’t have to invest much into it. Plus they were very cheap since no one wanted them. Pre-COVID of course.
Our 2008 Sienna finally died at just over 300k miles. Well, it still ran on a couple cylinders, so it got everyone home, but didn't have much power anymore.
> I'm sure you're aware of the major turbo QC problems Toyota has with the 3.4L twin turbo in the Tundra and Sequoia models.
That's why I got a Tacoma with a plain V6 and no turbo's to worry about :)
That's why I got a Tacoma with a plain V6 and no turbo's to worry about :)
Well then you can just worry about the transmission.
have driven toyota all my life. Once it went from 90's camry to 2000's prius, there was essentially zero real maintenance require.
> The dealership then pays mechanics an hourly wage ($20+, fairly high for well certified master mechanics) and assumes that the hours listed on the job from the manufacturer are accurate, leaving the mechanic to take the risk if it goes over.
What's the mechanic's risk? Are they only paid on the pre-estimated labor time?
What's the mechanic's risk? Are they only paid on the pre-estimated labor time?
It's not an hourly rate as in if you work 5 hours you are paid for 5 hours of labor. You are paid $20+ an hour based on the expected time to complete the job, with a price floor of minimum wage. If a job should take 3 hours and you take one, congrats, you made money. If the job should take 3 hours and it takes a full day, sucks to be you, you get paid for 3 hours. If the job should take 3 hours and you wait 2 hours for a part, you get paid 3 horus.
It's almost like a hairdresser as well, as they usually need to buy many of their own tools.
It's almost like a hairdresser as well, as they usually need to buy many of their own tools.
Well, if mechanic is present on the workplace all day, they must get paid at least a minimum wage per day, regardless of any estimates or even if there's any work at all.
It's employer's problem, employer never wants to pay workers less than minumum wage per hour, and loading them with work is manager's job.
But I doubt mechanics want minumum wage, especially since it's not keeping up with inflation.
It's employer's problem, employer never wants to pay workers less than minumum wage per hour, and loading them with work is manager's job.
But I doubt mechanics want minumum wage, especially since it's not keeping up with inflation.
Just make sure you understand that minimum wage is only for W2s. Shops likely dont only us employee labor and likely treat their mechanics and contractors often enough.
Then autoshops are exposed to the risk that mechanics report/sue them for "employee misclassification" and unpaid wages.
Employers are better always pay at least minimum wage, even for 1099s, otherwise more incentive for workers to report them.
Of course many are ok being exposed to that risk, depends on the jobs. Also there's tips that help employers avoiding the unpaid wages. However, worker must report the tips received, and if they received less tips to cover the minimum wage, then employer must pay employee the difference (so the total pay would be at least min wage).
I saw that restaurant owners pay at least min wage even to illegal workers who don't even have SSNs. I assumed that unpaid wages is more serious than hiring illegally.
Of course many are ok being exposed to that risk, depends on the jobs. Also there's tips that help employers avoiding the unpaid wages. However, worker must report the tips received, and if they received less tips to cover the minimum wage, then employer must pay employee the difference (so the total pay would be at least min wage).
I saw that restaurant owners pay at least min wage even to illegal workers who don't even have SSNs. I assumed that unpaid wages is more serious than hiring illegally.
> Then autoshops are exposed to the risk that mechanics report/sue them for "employee misclassification" and unpaid wages.
I don't think that is a very high risk for the "employer". There's a reason that things like this go on for so long: https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...
Those billions are just the reported amounts.
I don't think that is a very high risk for the "employer". There's a reason that things like this go on for so long: https://www.epi.org/publication/employers-steal-billions-fro...
Those billions are just the reported amounts.
Yes, but if you are one of Uber/Lyft drivers you're less likely to receive anything from reporting them than if you're one of only 5 mechanics in an auto shop. Auto shop owner does not have an army of lawyers to drag the case.
>Are they only paid on the pre-estimated labor time?
That's more or less it.
That's more or less it.
Maybe they should unionize.
Mechanics don't have to work for the dealership. If the dealership isn't paying them well, they can go work for an independent shop, which is exactly what's happening.
Getting paid the book rate is an advantage to the mechanic because then they still get the full rate if they're more efficient at their job, which is an advantage to everybody. As long as the book rate is reasonable. And if it isn't then they don't take the job, which isn't a problem for the mechanics, it's a problem for Ford.
Getting paid the book rate is an advantage to the mechanic because then they still get the full rate if they're more efficient at their job, which is an advantage to everybody. As long as the book rate is reasonable. And if it isn't then they don't take the job, which isn't a problem for the mechanics, it's a problem for Ford.
Yep I know a few mechanics and all of them who worked at dealerships have gone independent. Either started their own shop, or are working for a non-dealer shop.
A mechanic getting $20/hr is crazy. Shops charge the customer $100+ per hour for labor. Of course they have overhead, but many people don't realize that mechanics buy their own tools.
You can earn $20 flipping burgers.
A mechanic getting $20/hr is crazy. Shops charge the customer $100+ per hour for labor. Of course they have overhead, but many people don't realize that mechanics buy their own tools.
You can earn $20 flipping burgers.
This, plus they get used to the non-warranty rate, so when they have to warranty work at the lower rate, they feel cheated.
For years, it was difficult to hire licensed mechanics at Hyundai dealerships due to the massive recall of the 2.4L engine. Since Hyundai had to eat the losses of offering a lifetime warranty to owners of that engine, recalls and product improvements, mechanics bore some of that financial burden when Hyundai provided a low labor rate to them. They would spend days swapping an engine and watch a lube lane mechanic out earn them.
I despise the idea of leasing, but in a world where nothing is built to last any more, there may not be much of a choice for people just trying to get from point A to point B.
> The dealership then pays mechanics an hourly wage ($20+, fairly high for well certified master mechanics)
Maybe in Ohio.
I'm not sure that your comment is even directionally correct. TFA is clickbait for blue collar pseudo-car-guys. The example given in the article paints the mechanic as the hero, losing money on every job. In reality book time is insanely exaggerated in the median, and the problem is likely more that mechanics don't like earning a dime for every dollar the boss makes.
Many mechanics (seems that is what the article example is) get paid on book time, not hourly. That is what the guy in the article is complaining about. That their book rate is both too aggressive, and far less than the "customer book time" / rate. The reason mechanics are often paid this way is so that they stay efficient. Warranty jobs are especially aggressive on the mechanic book rate, because cars under warranty are newer with few unexpected problems like rusty parts, stripped bolts, age related issues, etc.
Maybe in Ohio.
I'm not sure that your comment is even directionally correct. TFA is clickbait for blue collar pseudo-car-guys. The example given in the article paints the mechanic as the hero, losing money on every job. In reality book time is insanely exaggerated in the median, and the problem is likely more that mechanics don't like earning a dime for every dollar the boss makes.
Many mechanics (seems that is what the article example is) get paid on book time, not hourly. That is what the guy in the article is complaining about. That their book rate is both too aggressive, and far less than the "customer book time" / rate. The reason mechanics are often paid this way is so that they stay efficient. Warranty jobs are especially aggressive on the mechanic book rate, because cars under warranty are newer with few unexpected problems like rusty parts, stripped bolts, age related issues, etc.
I'm not a professional and I routinely match book times for most jobs working with no particular urgency on rusty garbage.
$20 is starting as I understand, and goes up quite high for master mechanics with certifications. That's how I meant that to be read.
keep in mind a good mechanic is making double time or better.. although I understand that's harder on a FORD than a Japanese car.
$20 is also on the low end for a good tech, you're correct.
$20 is also on the low end for a good tech, you're correct.
That seems absurdly low, I would expect a skilled mechanic to make at least $50 an hour.
$20/hour is starting pay around here at McDonalds, In-N-Out Burger, etc.
$20/hour is starting pay around here at McDonalds, In-N-Out Burger, etc.
Thus the starting out part. Certifications, years of experience, skills in terms of welding exhaust or the like all raise that, but mechanics get screwed on their rate regularly, which is why they're dropping out. See one of the other top level comments about "shortage -> low wages."
A decent mechanic who works 40hr is getting paid more than 40hr.
He's also buying his own tools, breaking his back and knuckles, and exposed to carcinogens (used motor oil, grease, etc).
>He's also buying his own tools
cheaper than a degree
>breaking his back and knuckles, and exposed to carcinogens (used motor oil, grease, etc).
They work indoors and don't exactly work in an environment where things get burnt or aerosolized. It's no office job but it's not exactly ditch digging.
cheaper than a degree
>breaking his back and knuckles, and exposed to carcinogens (used motor oil, grease, etc).
They work indoors and don't exactly work in an environment where things get burnt or aerosolized. It's no office job but it's not exactly ditch digging.
The Ford dealership I worked as a technician at had a covered roof, but just past the lift it was uncovered. It was basically outdoors - no AC and the wind would blow rain on you.
If we're playing the stupid "suffering is virtue" game you're still losing to pretty much anyone who brings their tools to the machine.
You're playing that stupid game by yourself. I was explaining the justification behind a decent mechanic who works 40hr on the clock is getting paid more than 40hr on the book.
This seems like a pretty fair system, they do get to do it on unrealistic practically new vehicles, but they also can’t take any practical shortcuts whatsoever.
Is there any proposal for some alternate way determining it?
Is there any proposal for some alternate way determining it?
The impression I got from seeing the demonstration was that this was the result of years of negotiating and arguing to get to something fair. Ford doesn't love it, dealers don't love it, but no one can really come up with a major improvement.
Calvin and Hobbes: "A good compromise leaves everybody mad."
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9cGKql0Wk1A/TrAJTrDoxxI/AAAAAAAAA...
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9cGKql0Wk1A/TrAJTrDoxxI/AAAAAAAAA...
I say something like this to my kids when I'm tired of mediating and I want them to solve their own disagreements. "My definition of success is that you are both crying after I've made my decision."
(for the record, I did not have this policy when they were toddlers, only as tweens; I'm not a monster)
(for the record, I did not have this policy when they were toddlers, only as tweens; I'm not a monster)
Such policies encourage bad behaviour - being reasonable makes it guaranteed you loose against unreasonable.
If the article is to be believed Ford has changed how book time is calculated considering they're paying 36 minutes for a job that requires removing the cab.
The fact that you need to take the cab off to do an oil pan gasket should set off some alarm bells for how maintainable these vehicles are.
> If the article is to be believed
I don't. Someone is lying.
I don't. Someone is lying.
I'm also skeptical. I suspect that book time for this varies wildly depending on drivetrain config.
HYou think it might be the CEO? No, couldn't be, surely someone paid 100s of times their employees would be honest about something he has no real experience doing.
I think it is either the journalist, or the guy she interviewed.
I know how Ford sets book time. Their methodology, while perhaps biased towards optimistic estimates, is not ever going to put cab R&R at under an hour.
Charitably, someone is mistaken. But given that these numbers are core to the argument being made, I find it odd that the claims were not vetted at all. It takes almost no effort to find example R&R times for various Ford pickups, and they're all measured in hours. It's not hard, typically 6-10 bolts depending on the model. But even with bulk electrical connectors, no rust, the right tools, and experience, the process takes more than an hour.
I know how Ford sets book time. Their methodology, while perhaps biased towards optimistic estimates, is not ever going to put cab R&R at under an hour.
Charitably, someone is mistaken. But given that these numbers are core to the argument being made, I find it odd that the claims were not vetted at all. It takes almost no effort to find example R&R times for various Ford pickups, and they're all measured in hours. It's not hard, typically 6-10 bolts depending on the model. But even with bulk electrical connectors, no rust, the right tools, and experience, the process takes more than an hour.
Smells like CEO in here.
A fair system? This is nothing more than theater, necessary to get cheap labor. What about giving mechanics an hourly rate, just like the rest of the world?
A person achieved that time to do the work. What is theatre about that?
An hourly rate punishes mechanics who work fast, don't you think?
An hourly rate punishes mechanics who work fast, don't you think?
The book time provides consistency within and across dealerships. Would you accept paying twice as much for a repair if they assigned a new mechanic to your job?
The one thing I've heard consistently from people in that business is "You won't last long if you can't beat the book," something experienced mechanics do on a regular basis.
The one thing I've heard consistently from people in that business is "You won't last long if you can't beat the book," something experienced mechanics do on a regular basis.
[deleted]
The "design for unmaintainability" problem has been around for a while. I remember helping a friend change his plugs on this Ford Ranger in the early 90s. The closest two plugs to the firewall required you to climb into the engine bay and basically hug the engine to get your arm into position to blindly get to the plugs. If you look around on YouTube you'll see some crazy mechanic videos where they show things like bolts located in impossible to loosen locations.
Cars used to be simpler to work on because a) they inherently were simpler and b) the engine bay used to have a lot of room to work in. Both of these things are not coming back.
Cars used to be simpler to work on because a) they inherently were simpler and b) the engine bay used to have a lot of room to work in. Both of these things are not coming back.
> Cars used to be simpler to work on because
No, it's because they are designed to be assembled from complete sub-assemblies. Maintenance is not assumed to be done on the sub-assemblies while they are in the final product. Under warranty, workshops are intended to replace entire sub-assemblies with new/rebuilt parts.
It's effectively a deliberate decision from the 80s that enabled faster assembly while warranties were shorter. For cars that are out of warranty, it doesn't matter either way.
The problem in the article occurs when Ford tries to pay someone to repair faults that were not planned to happen during the warranty time. Impossible, because it's completely uneconomical.
No, it's because they are designed to be assembled from complete sub-assemblies. Maintenance is not assumed to be done on the sub-assemblies while they are in the final product. Under warranty, workshops are intended to replace entire sub-assemblies with new/rebuilt parts.
It's effectively a deliberate decision from the 80s that enabled faster assembly while warranties were shorter. For cars that are out of warranty, it doesn't matter either way.
The problem in the article occurs when Ford tries to pay someone to repair faults that were not planned to happen during the warranty time. Impossible, because it's completely uneconomical.
For cars that are out of warranty, it is an advantage, as the car will be scrapped sooner, thereby opening up a hole in the market that needs to be filled with a new car.
An advantage to the manufacturer, that is. For the consumer, it leads to never ending car payments for life, or surprise bills that approach the cost of a replacement vehicle.
An advantage to the manufacturer, that is. For the consumer, it leads to never ending car payments for life, or surprise bills that approach the cost of a replacement vehicle.
But if it happens too much the cars will have low value on the secondhand market, and therefore be less desireable to new car purchasers because they will suffer more depreciation. Not all buyers look at that stuff but smart ones do.
I've encountered these headaches helping friends with their vehicles, and every time I'm reminded how much I prefer wrenching on my 80s-90s era mazdas.
My old protege even had an access port in the fender well added specifically to remove the crank bolt with an extension. If it were an Audi the FSM would point you to the engine removal process as step 1.
My old protege even had an access port in the fender well added specifically to remove the crank bolt with an extension. If it were an Audi the FSM would point you to the engine removal process as step 1.
> If it were an Audi the FSM would point you to the engine removal process as step 1.
And once an OEM has committed to that sort of design it spirals.
"chuck the timing chains on the back, who cares, the engine gets pulled for everything regardless".
And once an OEM has committed to that sort of design it spirals.
"chuck the timing chains on the back, who cares, the engine gets pulled for everything regardless".
It's kind of always been that way to varying degrees. In the 70's/80's, changing the Porsche 911 spark plugs required dropping the engine.
Also, in addition to planned obsolescence and repair hostility is Design for Manufacturing (DfM) that doesn't care about maintainability, safety, comfort, or durability, only lowest cost to shove things together on an assembly line. This is why there are some cars that require removing the wheel well to change the oil filter and other that have things completely out-of-order or require absurd tools to service. My grandfather was a 30 year Chrysler dealer mechanic who had a dozen or so custom tools for very specific purposes.
Source: Dad had an A/C & electrical mechanic shop next to a Porsche specialist shop.
Also, in addition to planned obsolescence and repair hostility is Design for Manufacturing (DfM) that doesn't care about maintainability, safety, comfort, or durability, only lowest cost to shove things together on an assembly line. This is why there are some cars that require removing the wheel well to change the oil filter and other that have things completely out-of-order or require absurd tools to service. My grandfather was a 30 year Chrysler dealer mechanic who had a dozen or so custom tools for very specific purposes.
Source: Dad had an A/C & electrical mechanic shop next to a Porsche specialist shop.
>Also, in addition to planned obsolescence and repair hostility is Design for Manufacturing (DfM) that doesn't care about maintainability, safety, comfort, or durability, only lowest cost to shove things together on an assembly line.
Exactly. It's basically fight club math. Spend $10 on a click-fit connector that can't be disassembled but that a $60/hr (though they only see a fraction of that) UAW laborer can plug in in half the time can't easily short-insert that can be visually checked.
The fact that it costs $200 the 1/10000 times it fails under warranty doesn't matter with those numbers. And you don't even care about the 100/100 times it fails at 2-3x the warranty period.
Of course, you're burning credibility doing this. But credibility doesn't have an obvious mapping to a number and stonk go up, KPI go up, bonus get paid, nobody cares.
Exactly. It's basically fight club math. Spend $10 on a click-fit connector that can't be disassembled but that a $60/hr (though they only see a fraction of that) UAW laborer can plug in in half the time can't easily short-insert that can be visually checked.
The fact that it costs $200 the 1/10000 times it fails under warranty doesn't matter with those numbers. And you don't even care about the 100/100 times it fails at 2-3x the warranty period.
Of course, you're burning credibility doing this. But credibility doesn't have an obvious mapping to a number and stonk go up, KPI go up, bonus get paid, nobody cares.
There is ultimately a feedback cycle in that maintenance and reliability problems reduce used car values, and those drive lease rates. When manufacturers have trouble making the numbers work on cheap leases then that eventually hurts sales volume, but it takes many years for that effect to show up.
You can milk the public for like a decade of "shareholder value" between such time as you change things and the public wises up.
Luckily you don't have go drop the engine to change spark plugs on modern water cooled Porsche 911s, but let me tell you about changing plugs on mid-engined Cayman/Boxster platform. The 4 cylinder cars are easier but 6 cylinder cars require 3-4 different combinations of sockets and extensions and tiny European hands to really get in there.
In the 70's/80's you could fit a person in the engine bay of a Volvo. So, varying degrees of complexity and difficulty to fix things.
The red block Volvos would also run for literally millions of miles, and outside of the turbo models were pretty thrifty on gas. We've fallen a long ways.
Volvo may have fallen a long way, but US cars of that time were literal trash that 100,000 miles was about the total useful life of the car before far too much needed replaced. I'm old enough to remember how Japanese cars started taking the US by storm because of it. They sipped gas in comparison and drove forever.
I've seen some video comparisons between American cars and Toyotas, and Toyota seemed to have figured out how to make cars a lot easier to maintain than the American companies. I saw one case where changing a simple fuse required several hours of disassembly in the American car but only 30s in the Toyota. It's about priorities. It's about ethics. American companies don't give a fuck, and it shows. And American companies don't give a fuck, because Americans largely don't give a fuck.
I know someone who had an older Chrysler 300, and you had to take a wheel off to change the battery. Baffling. I'm not much of a mechanic, but the Honda's I've owned over the years have all been easy to work on. At least in the engine bay.
Tbh, taking a tire off isn’t that difficult.
BMW can be kinda a pain (its under a liner in the trunk, making you work at weird angles (and part emptying your trunk) but the benefit is your battery isn’t exposed to the elements and probably lasts longer for that reason.
BMW can be kinda a pain (its under a liner in the trunk, making you work at weird angles (and part emptying your trunk) but the benefit is your battery isn’t exposed to the elements and probably lasts longer for that reason.
I believe there's a modern (GM?) truck out there that has a belt rated for something like 250K miles...but when you have to replace it, the entire engine needs to be removed.
Don't forget one of the latest automotive mistakes, the "wet timing belt".
This is a rubber timing belt (not a chain) that runs through your engine oil disintegrating and clogging up your oil filters.
If anyone here owns a car with that system I recommend taking it to your trusted mechanic and discussing with them to do additional preventive maintenance on it.
If anyone here owns a car with that system I recommend taking it to your trusted mechanic and discussing with them to do additional preventive maintenance on it.
Don't forget one of the latest automotive mistakes, the "wet timing belt". This is a rubber timing belt (not a chain) that runs through your engine oil disintegrating and clogging up your oil filters.
What cars use those?
What cars use those?
A lot of 4 cylinders and the Duramax 3.0L engine. The claim is that these belts reduce noise because chains are "loud".
Wow, yeah, it looks like the Duramax engine has a 15-year belt replacement interval that costs $10K at today's rates.
They aren't even trying to hide the whole planned-obsolescence thing at this point. Average age of cars on the road is approaching 13 years now, so someone who buys a Duramax-based vehicle will end up with a metal and plastic brick that costs more to maintain than it's worth, just because of the timing belt alone.
They aren't even trying to hide the whole planned-obsolescence thing at this point. Average age of cars on the road is approaching 13 years now, so someone who buys a Duramax-based vehicle will end up with a metal and plastic brick that costs more to maintain than it's worth, just because of the timing belt alone.
Build a drop-in crate EV conversion kit now. Cheap shells available soon.
That is the worst idea in the history of ideas
It's 180k miles. It's the 3.0L Duramax because the oil pump is on the backside of the engine using an oil submersed belt rather than a chain or set of gears. So you have to drop the transmission, exhaust, oil pan, and take the back side of the engine cover to replace a belt that should have been a chain. It _may_ be faster, to simply disconnect everything and pull the motor.
Source: I own one of these engines and I dread having to pay ~3k for this maintenance in 3 years. I like the engine, just not this maintenance ticket item.
Source: I own one of these engines and I dread having to pay ~3k for this maintenance in 3 years. I like the engine, just not this maintenance ticket item.
Sounds like the Colorado. It's a reason they'll pry my S10s, GMT400 and GMT800s from my cold dead hands as they're more reliable, cheaper to service and easier to service.
In the 1955 Citroen, standard French family car of the era, the timing chain sits behind a cover about 1/2" from the firewall, the whole engine has to come out to change it.
How do dealerships get away with essentially passing on the downside and risk of warranties to mechanics?
Shouldn't it be the business that's shouldering the variability in income due to warranties, since they're the ones that sold the cars with them?
It seems similar to a hypothetical restaurant selling memberships with food, then paying workers less when customers buy food with the membership discount.
Shouldn't it be the business that's shouldering the variability in income due to warranties, since they're the ones that sold the cars with them?
It seems similar to a hypothetical restaurant selling memberships with food, then paying workers less when customers buy food with the membership discount.
Because dealerships sell cars but don't build them. The warranty really should be from the manufacturer, not the dealership.
They get away with passing the risk because they're already apex parasites who have successfully inserted themselves between carmakers and customers, and lobby like crazy everywhere to protect their position.
They get away with passing the risk because they're already apex parasites who have successfully inserted themselves between carmakers and customers, and lobby like crazy everywhere to protect their position.
In every aspect of their operations, dealerships are useless parasitic middlemen who provide no value to customers and exist solely because of protectionist legislation that they pay for with their rent-seeking. Why would you expect repairs and warranty claims to be any different?
Capitalism 101: maximize you profit paying the minimum to your workers. Increase the surplus value.
As usual, low pay + increasing task complexity, YoY.
Nothing there has changed for decades except the world around it.
Nothing there has changed for decades except the world around it.
Auto mechanics do things to "flat rate" where each task is listed as taking a given amount of time. There seems to be a lot of variation between what the book says, and how long the tasks actually take. How are these flat rates assessed? I wonder if it's assuming a new car with no complications or wear and tear to components, or rust etc.
Book rates are often set by the manufacturer. In theory, they have a mechanic do the job and time it. The real big problem is warranty work is only paid at a fraction of the book rate. So if a job normally takes three hours if you do it under warranty, you only get paid for two hours. It’s a massive disincentive for mechanics to work long-term for a brand-name dealership that sells new cars. They always run the risk of getting shafted by too much warranty work.
What's missing from the discussion is the opposite though. I worked at a dealership (albeit a long time ago) and many mechanics loved warranty work as some would be listed as a 2 hour job but would only take 1.25hr or whatever. So they were often able to put in 12 hours on a 10 hour shift for example.
>(albeit a long time ago)
This probably matters a lot depending on what 'long time ago' means.
Like when you hear old timers say "When I was a kid I bought X for Y" where Y is something like 10th the cost it is now. The push for profits has squeezed every section of the economy and it sounds like (dealer) mechanics are not escaping.
This probably matters a lot depending on what 'long time ago' means.
Like when you hear old timers say "When I was a kid I bought X for Y" where Y is something like 10th the cost it is now. The push for profits has squeezed every section of the economy and it sounds like (dealer) mechanics are not escaping.
A long time ago was in 2002 or so. But warranty work still drove most of dealer profits back then, so I suspect there was still the same push.
Yeah, that applies to warranty and non-warranty - the mechanics always want to beat the book. And there are definitely some jobs that are well know to be winner, and others that are losers. And nobody wants to take the losers.
Never been a mechanic, but I'm guessing the losers go to the new guy.
Why do dealerships assume warranty risk instead of the manufacturer?
I'm pretty sure the manufacturer does pay for the warranty repair. But only at the fractional rate. The dealership effectively passes that loss onto its employees. Working for a small, independent shop can have better wage/salary, but often lacks benefits (health care in particular) and comes with all the usual downsides of a small business (one bad owner/manager can ruin the experience).
If they assess that a repair needs three hours, then only pay two hours of work if it's under warranty, I don't see how that doesn't mean that either they know that the book estimate is an overestimate and reimburse the correct amount, or the book estimate is correct and the dealership effectivley assumes 33% of the warranty risk because they only get reimbursed for 66% of the repair cost. (the third alternative is that the book estimate is underestimating, but that's basically the second case, but worse).
Neither of those cases looks like fair business dealings
Neither of those cases looks like fair business dealings
It's effectively two different book rates, the warranty book assumes a new car. The non-warranty book assumes an older car. Older car = rust, rounded fasteners, and other things that add to the time.
Mechanic gets used to working at non-warranty rates, so any warranty works feels like being cheated.
Does it all balance out in the end? Maybe. But, that's not what mechanics "feel" like happens. And they're paid little enough (generally) that the two books annoys them. And the working conditions are bad enough (both physically, but also "mentally" - many shops are hostile workplaces, or close to it, with poor benefits, long-ish hours, etc). So, they have a lot to bitch about, generally.
Mechanic gets used to working at non-warranty rates, so any warranty works feels like being cheated.
Does it all balance out in the end? Maybe. But, that's not what mechanics "feel" like happens. And they're paid little enough (generally) that the two books annoys them. And the working conditions are bad enough (both physically, but also "mentally" - many shops are hostile workplaces, or close to it, with poor benefits, long-ish hours, etc). So, they have a lot to bitch about, generally.
To give them an incentive not to just rubber stamp every warranty claim.
There's some similarity here to US medical/dental insurance. Some work obviously needs to be done, but the entity that promised to pay for it won't. The system adapts (or fails).
My mechanic charges by the hour and does great work. They're not the cheapest option, but the value for money can't be beat.
This is world-wide, not just in the automotive industry. The US military has the same problem. The Navy has submarines sitting in port unable to go to sea because they don't have enough mechanics to run or repair them. When I was in the Navy, we were being assigned more than 24hrs of work per day. Management knew it wasn't being completed and they were falsifying nuclear engineering maintenance records, sweeping it straight under the rug. In a time when all other jobs lost their bonuses or started force-retiring people, we were being offered near-six-figure bonuses to re-enlist for two more years. If you played it right you could get it tax-free and it would almost double your take-home compensation. And we were all turning them down because the job was so horrible. After I got out of the military I worked in mechanical engineering in several different industries before switching to software. Most of the best mechanics I knew switched to software.
Does the military train you to be a mechanic from scratch?
The data for long term maintenance can be found but for example the government could mandate it be published for car models to give consumers more insight and be a lever to incentivize designing cars to be more easily maintainable (e.g. not have to remove a truck's cab to replace an oil filter gasket!) https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-maintenance/the-cos...
So basically they refuse to pay a reasonable hourly rate. They pay flat fee perfect world rates that cause mechanics to lose money when they encounter real world problems.
As always the worker shortage is a “there’s a shortage of skilled workers who refuse to get screwed on pay”
As always the worker shortage is a “there’s a shortage of skilled workers who refuse to get screwed on pay”
It is very often like that. Employers like to play capitalism with employees, but when tables turn and employees will start playing capitalism with employers then it is suddenly a big problem and ideally government should be involved to help poor little employer out.
No it's not. People pay market rate salaries to compete with other employers also wanting those people. Everyone's "playing" capitalism, as free agreements are better than people being forced to do what their master / guild / bureaucrat tells them to do.
Electric cars need a lot fewer mechanical repairs. Sounds like yet more reasons to avoid buying one of these overpriced over complicated petro vehicles.
Sounds like you have no idea how dangerous is to put your hands around electric car batteries and how expensive certified electricians are. Without a mechanic that ALSO has an advanced expert certification for high voltage electronics, the blown BMS or contactor (500$) becomes a whole battery to scrap (20k). Then you add the 6 hours of diagnostics and labor on top of it.
Electric vehicles are not an arduino circuit with a couple of led and an usb cable.
This illustrates why the battery really needs to be decoupled from the car. We do it for other electrical appliances like flashlights. The EV auto mechanic should optimize for removing and installing the battery. Batteries should be taken offsite to a speciality facility where High Voltage experts work on the batteries - repair, recycling, etc.
It sounds like you are the one who has no idea.
There are a few basic things you have to not do in order to work on an EV, basically the same rules as for airbag systems but with physically larger components.
No modern car is electrically simple, but they all do a pretty good job telling you where you ought to be looking.
There are a few basic things you have to not do in order to work on an EV, basically the same rules as for airbag systems but with physically larger components.
No modern car is electrically simple, but they all do a pretty good job telling you where you ought to be looking.
He is correct. If you have no idea what are you doing with BEV, you can destroy the car and your garage without even realizing what has just happened.
This is flatly false. The HV operating procedures on cars add significant complexity and danger to working on them. In fact, any HV work will automatically add a huge chunk of labor hours to any work and is why anything touching the HV system instantly goes into the thousands of dollars as a baseline. We are talking hundreds of volts above fatal baseline and very high amps on accidental discharge. For comparison, its safer on your biology to stick a fork in 120VAC outlet deliberately than to make a mistake with HVDC.
If only I could find one that isn't a spy platform. That's a problem with all vehicles that are too new, not just EVs. That makes new cars a nonstarter for me, which as a side-effect makes all EVs a nonstarter for me.
I'm curious how in-depth you've been looking, especially investigating models where you can do a little bit of work to do things like unplug cell modems. I'm somewhat in need of a new vehicle and have just assumed the whole market is trash based of what I've read online and the new cars I've seen people get. But I'm hoping I've missed some gems of online communities still managing to eek out some freedom (and physical buttons, of course).
[deleted]
I'm hoping we'll see EV kit cars with open software someday. There's conversion kits for a number of cars, and I've thought about turning my old 08 Civic into one just for the freedom from car manufacturers.
Some models you can literally just pull a fuse for the telemetry modem and the car will be offline. Worth considering.
This is my backup plan for the day when I can no longer get a good used car that's old enough. Until then, though, I'm not willing to reward auto manufacturers who do this by giving them my money.
Disconnect the antenna, and optionally connect a dummy load in its place.
Yes but consider that they may need more electronics repairs. A car is a notoriously bad environment for electronics and this is not a solved issue. On top of that most modern cars, especially electric cars are so tightly integrated with all closed components and no real way to repair except beg the manufacturer for a replacement part. On top of that you are pulling a lot of reasonable reliable control and timing related issues into the electronics and software.
Current day electric cars are ripe for abuse from manufacturers (planned obsolescence or generic out of warranty obsolescence) and I would be surprised if any of them are still running for over 25+ years. Even though today you see a lot of cars from the 2000s and before. Especially since the market is very fragmented between models and manufacturers.
Basically any modern day electric car is worse in terms of repair-ability then any Iphone in my opinion.
Current day electric cars are ripe for abuse from manufacturers (planned obsolescence or generic out of warranty obsolescence) and I would be surprised if any of them are still running for over 25+ years. Even though today you see a lot of cars from the 2000s and before. Especially since the market is very fragmented between models and manufacturers.
Basically any modern day electric car is worse in terms of repair-ability then any Iphone in my opinion.
This is mostly true, but the cost of maintenance, fuel, and repair doesn't offset the cost insurance, electricity, and battery replacement for me over the course of 10 years, so my next vehicle will still be a petrol engine car unless something changes substantially. The big thing is, for me, an electric vehicle insurance quote for me ranges between 4K and 6K per year.
Yeah nobody is willing to give up the revenue/tax from someone driving a car. In fact, I bet electric vehicles will end up more expensive per mile, mark my words.
I haven't seen that in practice. My last ICE car had only about 1/3 of its maintenance costs for components that wouldn't have been present on an EV. And the upfront cost and price for the remaining 2/3 of maintenance were so cheap that it's basically impossible for any EV to ever be cheaper.
In some cases, sure. My anecdote:
Electric car. Horn keeps failing. $15 part, $900 to do the work. Why? Because to get to the horn, the entire front end of the car has to be disassembled, including the hood, bumper, fenders, you name it.
My fuel car’s horn assembly is easily accessed through the engine bay with a single bolt to remove it.
Efficiencies in one area seem to have led to extraordinarily difficult repair abilities elsewhere.
I won’t even go into how the air filters are replaced — but it starts with removing the dashboard…
Electric car. Horn keeps failing. $15 part, $900 to do the work. Why? Because to get to the horn, the entire front end of the car has to be disassembled, including the hood, bumper, fenders, you name it.
My fuel car’s horn assembly is easily accessed through the engine bay with a single bolt to remove it.
Efficiencies in one area seem to have led to extraordinarily difficult repair abilities elsewhere.
I won’t even go into how the air filters are replaced — but it starts with removing the dashboard…
That has nothing to do with an electric car. It's the same trend of designing cars to be easily manufactured at the factory, not repaired at a dealer.
I won’t even go into how the air filters are replaced — but it starts with removing the dashboard…
That's just bad design having nothing to do with EVs. It takes me about 30 seconds to replace cabin filter in a Hyundai Ioniq 5. The horns aren't quite as easy, but certainly do not require removal of the car's front end.
That's just bad design having nothing to do with EVs. It takes me about 30 seconds to replace cabin filter in a Hyundai Ioniq 5. The horns aren't quite as easy, but certainly do not require removal of the car's front end.
Hard physical labor, increasingly complex work, low pay. That mix will make any job interest dry up.
Emperor has no clothes. Instagram is full of videos by mechanics explaining this or that brand/model is stupidly engineered. Known problem. And mechanics do not have a seat at the table where these matters are discussed and decided upon. Unless he plans to change that…
Because manufacturers are using similar Sub-$9/hr engineers that Boeing is using to help them crash their planes
And a good portion of the people with a seat at the table are consultants working for TATA.
TATA owns Jaguar/Land Rover and they got ransomwared into complete shutdown. the UK Gov't is giving them $1.5 Billion to get back to working, because it is tanking their entire economy.
Really shows how little they care about the needful for the things they own directly, then extrapolate that out to all the consulting they do. Complete shit.
Really shows how little they care about the needful for the things they own directly, then extrapolate that out to all the consulting they do. Complete shit.
How to fix automotive repair:
1. The development and use of "rate books" is de facto price fixing. labor is a cost, and it has a price. Ban them by law.
2. Take the computers away from the engineers. There should be no ability to drag and drop assemblies to reshape them. No ability to make parts that are computed to barely meet requirements.
3. Patent licensing goes to a small flat fee per item per use. How about $1. A modern car can have upwards of 10,000 active patents for all components. All "Design Copyrights" are voided. A good design isnt created, it is recognized.
4. End nearly all "mandatory technologies" and features. Straight from Hayek et al, Incredible Bread Machine on wheels.
t. a Greasy Dirty Technician
1. The development and use of "rate books" is de facto price fixing. labor is a cost, and it has a price. Ban them by law.
2. Take the computers away from the engineers. There should be no ability to drag and drop assemblies to reshape them. No ability to make parts that are computed to barely meet requirements.
3. Patent licensing goes to a small flat fee per item per use. How about $1. A modern car can have upwards of 10,000 active patents for all components. All "Design Copyrights" are voided. A good design isnt created, it is recognized.
4. End nearly all "mandatory technologies" and features. Straight from Hayek et al, Incredible Bread Machine on wheels.
t. a Greasy Dirty Technician
My venerable Bronco II was so old, several oil leaks appeared in the engine as the gaskets deteriorated. I spent a year waiting for a shop to have an opening to rebuild or replace the engine. I finally gave up and gave the Bronco to a scrap yard.
[deleted]
This is a very low quality article rehashing some ones FB/Instagram video
Excessive regulation to blame? How so?
Government regulations around fuel efficiency per size of vehicle as well as crash test safety as well as materials.
People universally seem to dislike the size increase in vehicles, but this was due largely to magical requirements for fuel efficiency standards. The obvious result was putting smaller engines in larger cars and adding a turbo.
On the complexity side of things, cramming the safety gear into the car while also getting maximal efficiency and keeping costs low meant some rather terrible design choices from a repairability perspective.
All that said, I do love the safety requirements. I got hit by a Ford F150 in a Miata and walked away perfectly fine.
People universally seem to dislike the size increase in vehicles, but this was due largely to magical requirements for fuel efficiency standards. The obvious result was putting smaller engines in larger cars and adding a turbo.
On the complexity side of things, cramming the safety gear into the car while also getting maximal efficiency and keeping costs low meant some rather terrible design choices from a repairability perspective.
All that said, I do love the safety requirements. I got hit by a Ford F150 in a Miata and walked away perfectly fine.
Agreed on the safety. I can't tell how safe a car is by looking at it, so I'm all for government minimums in that area.
I'm not convinced CAFE is the way to go for fuel efficiency. The obvious thing to do is put some kind of levy on the expected total emissions of the vehicle over its lifetime, regardless of size, which would encourage people to buy cars no larger than their needs dictate. The current system seems inefficient.
I'm not convinced CAFE is the way to go for fuel efficiency. The obvious thing to do is put some kind of levy on the expected total emissions of the vehicle over its lifetime, regardless of size, which would encourage people to buy cars no larger than their needs dictate. The current system seems inefficient.
Heh, they just love blaming regulation. But I don't see anything about that in the article?
The problem is entirely due to the labor and compensation for mechanics. The Mechanics get a shit proposition. If you are smart, you do not do it. Exhibit A, mechanics are paid a fraction of revenue but are 100% responsible for warranty. Imagine if you shipped a bug, you are told to work without pay to fix it. That is what a mechanic does.
It’s even worse than that: someone else shipped the bug and you have to work without pay to fix it.
I wonder what are the stats on repairs of electric cars... Maybe part of the problem is that few people want to train for car mechanics knowing that work for most of them will run out mid-career because electric cars are nearly maintenance-free?
Is this the new "learn to code"
No, "learn to code" was the supply-side response of people who saw software engineers get paid shittons of money. This is a demand-side CEO lamenting the fact that he can't get people to fix cars for cheap, so literally the opposite problem.
The Demand-side marketing got you, LTC was 95% supply-side, +5% parroting.
Nobody wants to work for dealships. There are plenty of mechanics that that work at their own shops or for independent shops for better pay and conditions. Some places choose to do just the easier services (eg no transmission or internal engine work), no weekends, etc
I’m a bit confused, the top comment describes how time is estimated, which sounds very fair to the mechanic, so why the mechanics are not paid enough eventually? Is it because the estimation doesn’t include the “openning up” process, or what am I missing?
Yes, opining for wage suppression but also here's a mechanic owner/operator explaining the situation:
https://youtu.be/9cfbhxsqW84
https://youtu.be/9cfbhxsqW84
Thanks for posting. Long video, but at about the 12-minute mark he says something about warranty work, relevant to TFA. He says that the hourly rate for any work done under warranty is set artificially low by the manufacturer.
Say a dealership would normally charge a customer $200 an hour for a job, of which the technician will make about $50 an hour. But if the same work is done under warranty, i.e., the manufacturer is paying, the dealership will get only $100 an hour. The dealership, in turn, will reduce the technician's pay to less than $50. Thus, the manufacturer is squeezing the dealership, which is squeezing the tech.
Say a dealership would normally charge a customer $200 an hour for a job, of which the technician will make about $50 an hour. But if the same work is done under warranty, i.e., the manufacturer is paying, the dealership will get only $100 an hour. The dealership, in turn, will reduce the technician's pay to less than $50. Thus, the manufacturer is squeezing the dealership, which is squeezing the tech.
Is there a world out there where we could treat people like humans instead of “resources”? How far up the chain do you have to go to find the gross people making these decisions?
in tech? oft times you just look at your manager or skip level
This article reads as AI generated to me, anyone else see that?
Does it really matter? If the article is poor quality, then it is poor quality. It doesn't matter if it was written by a person or an LLM. I'm more annoyed how so many articles waste time quoting things people say on social media.
I think learning to recognize generated content is an important media literacy skill, and talking about it is one of the best ways to home that skill.
it matters because if we want to reduce AI slop we need to prevent it from becoming profitable.
and if we assume that an AI written article costs a fraction of a regular article, then AI articles will be profitable more easily.
and if we assume that an AI written article costs a fraction of a regular article, then AI articles will be profitable more easily.
At this point it's like using the urinal when you're directly beside an ocean full of piss. Dealing with it at an individual level has mostly failed as it would take coordination 'before' people click on the link, and enough people to realize it's junk before they submit it to HN. Being that at least 91 people upvoted this it seems like that isn't working.
maybe it isn't working because we haven't yet gotten used to detecting AI articles.
we can still change that if most of us decide to flag such articles, although, instead of a generic flag i'd like an AI flag or tag (similarly to how we tag older articles with the year). then everyone can decide on their own if it is worth their time.
we can still change that if most of us decide to flag such articles, although, instead of a generic flag i'd like an AI flag or tag (similarly to how we tag older articles with the year). then everyone can decide on their own if it is worth their time.
[deleted]
I don't understand how "under warranty" went from the company eating the cost to the mechanics eating the cost. How does that make any sense?
Car companies don't want you to be able to work on these cars. They would much rather you either buy a new car or use their 3x the cost parts and services.
The other day I listened to The Verge's Decoder episode with the Ford CEO [0] and unlike most other CEOs, he almost felt genuine. There was a noticeable lack of BS. Have I been played?
The lack of mechanics was mentioned and I recall him saying that they're building up apprenticeship programs and the US should take more pride in blue collar work.
0- https://www.theverge.com/podcast/784875/ford-ceo-jim-farley-...
The lack of mechanics was mentioned and I recall him saying that they're building up apprenticeship programs and the US should take more pride in blue collar work.
0- https://www.theverge.com/podcast/784875/ford-ceo-jim-farley-...
Right, because "pride" can substitute for decent wages, working conditions, and job security. /s
Disclosure: I work for General Motors (on software, not as a design engineer), this is solely my own opinion and experience.
An automotive assembly line consists of many "footprints" chained together. Each footprint is scheduled to have the same amount of work (in seconds). That work rate is also called the line rate, often expressed in jobs per hour. So 70 jph could also be expressed as 51.4 seconds per footprint.
Working backwards from the time you drive the finished vehicle off the end of the line, a truck assembly plant works like this:
So setting the engine on the frame must not take longer than 51.4 seconds, and setting the body on the frame also must not take longer than 51.4 seconds. (Along with all of the other ~~1,000 assembly footprints)
As a matter of simple evolution, no design that takes longer will be produced, because it does not survive the first round of selection: Assembly.
Designs that survive Assembly may eventually need Maintenance, but by then the genes have already been passed on.
Now you may say that Engineers are smart enough to fix both problems, but I don't believe in Intelligent Design.
Snark aside - maintenance falls under "residual value", and "residual value" may be a luxury that the automaker cannot afford.
Show me the outcome, and I will describe the incentives ~ Inverse Munger
Automotive design engineers have to satisfy MANY criteria, the following items entail LISTs of requirements, not a single req.
Now, once you have all the parts you need to make a vehicle, you can design the vehicle so that all those parts work together.
If you find out that you have to change the design of a part while you are designing the vehicle, this pushes back your project completion date. This makes the spreadsheets upset, and the spreadsheets take it out on your stock price.
----
Ok so "why don't they just" make the design better for the next model year?
Because those engineers have been assigned to another project! Also, design changes incur costs, which pushes out the program pay-off period.
You amortize Research and Design costs over the actual vehicles produced. Those vehicles have to be competitive in the market - price per value.
The Value Proposition for maintain-ability/repair-ability is not readily apparent at time of purchase.
This is why "residual value" is a luxury. No one gets to pick all of their own success criteria.
~~~ Again, this is all just like my opinion.
An automotive assembly line consists of many "footprints" chained together. Each footprint is scheduled to have the same amount of work (in seconds). That work rate is also called the line rate, often expressed in jobs per hour. So 70 jph could also be expressed as 51.4 seconds per footprint.
Working backwards from the time you drive the finished vehicle off the end of the line, a truck assembly plant works like this:
v Engine line -------------
Final Line <-- Chassis (frame) -------------
^ Trim Line (body)--------Paint Shop <------ Body Shop <--- Stamped Metal
graph TD
subgraph Chassis Shop
Fr[Frame Line] -->EM
EM[Engine Marriage] -->C
C[Chassis Line] --> BM
BM[Body Marriage] -->F
F[Final Line]
end
subgraph Engine
E[Engine Line] --> EM
end
subgraph Body Assembly
B[Body Shop] --> P[Paint Shop]
P --> T[Trim Shop]
T --> BM
end
So setting the engine on the frame must not take longer than 51.4 seconds, and setting the body on the frame also must not take longer than 51.4 seconds. (Along with all of the other ~~1,000 assembly footprints)
As a matter of simple evolution, no design that takes longer will be produced, because it does not survive the first round of selection: Assembly.
Designs that survive Assembly may eventually need Maintenance, but by then the genes have already been passed on.
Now you may say that Engineers are smart enough to fix both problems, but I don't believe in Intelligent Design.
Snark aside - maintenance falls under "residual value", and "residual value" may be a luxury that the automaker cannot afford.
*** To be clear, I am using 51.4 seconds as a stand-in exemplar for many other requirements in the assembly process.
Show me the outcome, and I will describe the incentives ~ Inverse Munger
Automotive design engineers have to satisfy MANY criteria, the following items entail LISTs of requirements, not a single req.
- the part must function (includes failure modes)
- the part must be manufacturable (make the part itself)
- the part must be assembl-able (it has to fit with the parts around it)
- ... be lightweight, environmentally friendly, comply with government requirements
-
- then, to actually exist:
- the part will be prototyped in a pre-production environment
- a component plant will be set up to manufacture that part
- the manufactured part will be tested to ensure that it still meets the design criteria
Now, once you have all the parts you need to make a vehicle, you can design the vehicle so that all those parts work together.
If you find out that you have to change the design of a part while you are designing the vehicle, this pushes back your project completion date. This makes the spreadsheets upset, and the spreadsheets take it out on your stock price.
----
Ok so "why don't they just" make the design better for the next model year?
Because those engineers have been assigned to another project! Also, design changes incur costs, which pushes out the program pay-off period.
You amortize Research and Design costs over the actual vehicles produced. Those vehicles have to be competitive in the market - price per value.
The Value Proposition for maintain-ability/repair-ability is not readily apparent at time of purchase.
This is why "residual value" is a luxury. No one gets to pick all of their own success criteria.
~~~ Again, this is all just like my opinion.
I smell bullshit. Ford does many things I do not really appreciate, but setting the book time of a pickup cab removal at less than an hour is definitely not one of them.
How is this legal?
I mean another pretty obvious reason is that most mechanics get an extremely low ratio of what they are paid vs what they are billed at.
I worked for a software company that was paying me $27/hr (this was a long time ago) salary and sending me to customer sites where I worked around the clock and they billed me at $180/hr for each hour I worked. The rate the mechanics get doesn't really seem out of line to me.
You have to remove the cab to change the oil pan gasket==YOU'LL have to pay ME to buy your stupidly-designed truck. But I realize, driving my 25-year-old car, that someday at this rate I won't have a choice. Maybe someone sells simple, underpowered kit cars and I can put that together.
Honestly it feels like we could very well see a microcosm of what happens on big trucks where a certain vintage get sold as "gliders" and get perpetually rebuilt. I don't understand how the market for trucks sustains itself, how many people are there really that want the king doodoo ranch 150k cadillac truck that has engine and transmission problems at 3 years out? I won't be surprised if the government basically bans cars older than 15 years old and totally bans "street rods" and kits meaning we will have no choice but to bend over for an inferior pile of shit truck.
leases/business lines of credit/tax benefits. all you gotta do is start an LLC and that f150 is all but yours, baby.
Does every fucking title need to be rewritten? The clickbait witch hunt legacy of Buzzfeed is more annoying today than it ever actually was when it existed.
motor1 is a clickbait farm site that specializes in tactics like "make an article from a social media post". Unfortunate that it got so much traction here, probably because the audience here is not familiar with the subject matter.
Every single time someone says "there's a shortage of <profession>", you can mentally substitute it for "we can't get <profession> for cheap".
Generally true, but not always! There are often very real bottlenecks on education too. We need a ton more electricians but it's nearly impossible to get into schools. Or you need union apprenticeships and their are not enough slots.
Pay is part of it, but for most skilled professions there's big bottlenecks on the training for the skills.
Or look at police officers in places like San Francisco. The pay is actually fantastic but the process of getting hired is hellish and takes a year or something ridiculous.
Or doctors, there's a massive shortage because there aren't enough residency spots, something controlled by the AMA. Pay is amazing (hours suck) and there are people clamoring to do it, but the bottleneck is structural, not because of pay.
Pay is part of it, but for most skilled professions there's big bottlenecks on the training for the skills.
Or look at police officers in places like San Francisco. The pay is actually fantastic but the process of getting hired is hellish and takes a year or something ridiculous.
Or doctors, there's a massive shortage because there aren't enough residency spots, something controlled by the AMA. Pay is amazing (hours suck) and there are people clamoring to do it, but the bottleneck is structural, not because of pay.
I'd argue that the "structural" bottleneck is actually just the same "pay" bottleneck.
This was the whole issue with allowing guilds in the first place... If you only allow a guild to do a job (legally) and the guild also controls how many members they train and accept... The end result is a labor shortage.
Because it's better for the existing members of the guild.
If they train a large number of new members... they spend time and money on training, and they've increased their competition during bidding which drives down rates.
So instead you train the bare minimum for replacements. This keeps your members' rates high and competition low.
---
Any time the "pay is great" but the "process to get it sucks!"... you're seeing this in action. It's not that the process really needs to suck, it's that the process roadblocks are there to maintain high pay for the existing trained members.
If there's one thing monopolies don't like... it's competition. And legally enforced certifications are wonderful monopoly creators if you don't manage them carefully.
This was the whole issue with allowing guilds in the first place... If you only allow a guild to do a job (legally) and the guild also controls how many members they train and accept... The end result is a labor shortage.
Because it's better for the existing members of the guild.
If they train a large number of new members... they spend time and money on training, and they've increased their competition during bidding which drives down rates.
So instead you train the bare minimum for replacements. This keeps your members' rates high and competition low.
---
Any time the "pay is great" but the "process to get it sucks!"... you're seeing this in action. It's not that the process really needs to suck, it's that the process roadblocks are there to maintain high pay for the existing trained members.
If there's one thing monopolies don't like... it's competition. And legally enforced certifications are wonderful monopoly creators if you don't manage them carefully.
That's one of the reasons US-trained doctors are in such short supply. The government controls the number of slots in medical schools, and from what I can tell the government does pretty much whatever the AMA wants.
Communists don't like competition, capitalists don't like competition either, what does that leave us with?
Where are the free market advocates that aren't just phonies?
Where are the free market advocates that aren't just phonies?
I'd argue that without competition, it isn't capitalism, and before someone "no true Scotsman"'s me, Adam Smith wrote about the dangers of monopolies in The Weath of Nations. Where Scotsman isn't a well defined term, and neither is capitalism, coloquially anyway, maybe, but a free market would have rival trade unions with different certification processes and employers would decide which certification was preferable.
"Neoliberalism" became a dirty word for lots of reasons (mainly because it caused a ton of people in developed nations to lose their jobs, as manufacturing capacity shifted to developing nations and developed nations leaned into the information economy), but there was a time when the word wasn't tainted and the pro-market Democrats of the Clinton era absolutely self-identified as Neoliberals.
They liked competition and markets, delivered strong economic growth, and brought the deficit down, but they fucked up by not funneling some of those efficiency gains into education and training, and toward building a robust social safety net to help the economically displaced.
They liked competition and markets, delivered strong economic growth, and brought the deficit down, but they fucked up by not funneling some of those efficiency gains into education and training, and toward building a robust social safety net to help the economically displaced.
pro-communists want a system without competition. Pro-capitalists do want competition or at least no restrictions. People who are practicing capitalists would love to not have competition.
Think of a prize race. The people organizing the race and the audience want a highly competitive race. But the racers, if they are in it for the prize, would love to have little to no competition.
Artificial restrictions on who can do a thing is not good and it is violence behind, whether it is government or not.
Anarcho-capitalists are the true expression of the ideology of free markets.
Think of a prize race. The people organizing the race and the audience want a highly competitive race. But the racers, if they are in it for the prize, would love to have little to no competition.
Artificial restrictions on who can do a thing is not good and it is violence behind, whether it is government or not.
Anarcho-capitalists are the true expression of the ideology of free markets.
I prefer 90% free 10% preventing monopolies, myself.
Its not that there is not enough education, its that there is too many regulatory barriers preventing licensing. It should be more like the DMV where anyone can take a test and get licensed if they pass. Forced experience and education requirements are touted as essential but are truly nothing more than regulatory moat building.
Maybe a test should be sufficient, but that test should be comprehensive, i.e., passing it should mean you had to do the education (formally or informally).
(Would you want someone performing surgery on you who "passed a test" but didn't have any formal education or training experience?)
(Would you want someone performing surgery on you who "passed a test" but didn't have any formal education or training experience?)
I don't know about "not ... not enough education". Have a look at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/04/us/politics/army-recruiti...
Would you consider the lack of offering apprenticeships to get your trade license or on the job training as more structural or financial?
If there is a shortage of something, I would expect these trade companies to backfill with apprentices who will then grow into their roles.
If there's too high a risk that someone won't be worth the investment, then that seems entirely financial to me.
If there is a shortage of something, I would expect these trade companies to backfill with apprentices who will then grow into their roles.
If there's too high a risk that someone won't be worth the investment, then that seems entirely financial to me.
I'm using the term "structural" here without any clear definition, to be honest. By it I mean that it's about the structure of society, the relationships that are in place, the difficulty of setting up a new school, the resistance of the AMA to open up more residency spots, etc. Points in the process where there's high friction for changing the system to a better "structure", whether or not the change requires financial incentives.
But I don't know if that meaning is shared by anyone else in the world! Thanks for asking for clarification, I'm interested in how you'd communicate that idea.
But I don't know if that meaning is shared by anyone else in the world! Thanks for asking for clarification, I'm interested in how you'd communicate that idea.
Police officers in SF make $103k per year.
Making less than $105k per year in SF is considered low income.
Making less than $105k per year in SF is considered low income.
The pay is quite a bit higher especially when you count overtime. https://careers.sf.gov/classifications/?classCode=Q002
And they get a kickass pension which is worth a lot
And they get a kickass pension which is worth a lot
> Or look at police officers in places like San Francisco. The pay is actually fantastic but the process of getting hired is hellish and takes a year or something ridiculous.
As it should be. I’m tired of dumb roughnecks attending a 6-week course and then getting the ability to legally beat people up. It should be difficult to become a police officer, we should hold them to a high standard, especially if we’re gonna pay them so much.
As it should be. I’m tired of dumb roughnecks attending a 6-week course and then getting the ability to legally beat people up. It should be difficult to become a police officer, we should hold them to a high standard, especially if we’re gonna pay them so much.
While I agree that police should be held to a high standard and trained well, is this the actual case in SF? Or is it bureaucratic hoops leading to long wait times and/or duplication of effort?
Is their training rigorous or is it just difficult to get hired?
> We need a ton more electricians but it's nearly impossible to get into schools. Or you need union apprenticeships and their are not enough slots.
This got solved in tech 20 years ago. You don't look at credentials and instead design a very arduous interviewing process that selects for both high IQ and people who are willing to study/work at it.
Then you provide lots of training. 20 years ago at Google (or Apple etc) there were tons of well educated non CS hires who were given good training and became exceptional software engineers.
This got solved in tech 20 years ago. You don't look at credentials and instead design a very arduous interviewing process that selects for both high IQ and people who are willing to study/work at it.
Then you provide lots of training. 20 years ago at Google (or Apple etc) there were tons of well educated non CS hires who were given good training and became exceptional software engineers.
Google spends a shitton on their employees. A large majority of that is on training. And of that, a large amount of that is because what you know about computers from the outside world isn't useful at Google. At the lowest level, Google's computers are still the same as everyone else's, but because of all the layers of automation that have been built up around them, you need to learn all the Google systems on how you interact with them, especially at Google scale. Some of that training is applicable elsewhere, but the trope in our industry is (and I'm as guilty of this as the next Xoogler, try as I might to not do this) "well at Google we did..." and for it to not be useful in the current job's context because the current job isn't Google and doesn't have that kind of resources or culture.
Their "solution" rides on an unfathomably large tsunami of money. Which is great for them (and by extension, my bank account while I was there), but how do we accomplish that when there isn't one?
Their "solution" rides on an unfathomably large tsunami of money. Which is great for them (and by extension, my bank account while I was there), but how do we accomplish that when there isn't one?
>but how do we accomplish that when there isn't one?
I worked for a small (~300 engineers) well run org in Verizon before I went to Google, and I was surprised at how well their training was, even with smaller budgets, and a tier below compensation wise and interviewing rigor.
This org supported being deliberate about hires, getting people who were experts and liked coaching/training along with those who were newbies with aptitude and desire. There was good documentation, good shared culture, and lots of safeguards like linting, excessive testing, example projects, if not quite the full fledged codelabs google has.
But part of it, both for Verizon and Google, was signaling that "good people work here and are well rewarded" (comparatively).
I worked for a small (~300 engineers) well run org in Verizon before I went to Google, and I was surprised at how well their training was, even with smaller budgets, and a tier below compensation wise and interviewing rigor.
This org supported being deliberate about hires, getting people who were experts and liked coaching/training along with those who were newbies with aptitude and desire. There was good documentation, good shared culture, and lots of safeguards like linting, excessive testing, example projects, if not quite the full fledged codelabs google has.
But part of it, both for Verizon and Google, was signaling that "good people work here and are well rewarded" (comparatively).
Hire, then train them for a long period of time? That is an apprenticeship. It's what they do in the trades already. There aren't enough slots (union or not).
e.g. http://www.calapprenticeship.org/programs/electrician_appren...
You need a diploma, a smattering of algebra, a driver's license, and the physical ability to do the work. Everything else you will be taught on the job, while being paid.
e.g. http://www.calapprenticeship.org/programs/electrician_appren...
You need a diploma, a smattering of algebra, a driver's license, and the physical ability to do the work. Everything else you will be taught on the job, while being paid.
[deleted]
You think a year is a lot? In my country it takes a bachelor of 3 years to become a police officer.
And rightfully so, the cops here are fantastic.
We do have lower level “enforcement officers” though, but they also take 2.4 to 3 years. Just not a bachelors
And rightfully so, the cops here are fantastic.
We do have lower level “enforcement officers” though, but they also take 2.4 to 3 years. Just not a bachelors
If these jobs you describe had higher pay rates, then all those bottlenecks you describe will magically go away.
I reckon the San Francisco PD salaries are not really all that "fantastic".
I reckon the San Francisco PD salaries are not really all that "fantastic".
While that's true, there is some market clearing price in which the activity just ceases to exist.
For instance, take something with a small marginal benefit like a dedicated person at a supermarket to bag groceries. It's a nice to have but the value to the employer is probably less than a $15 minimum wage. So you could say there is a shortage of grocery baggers since there is no one willing to do it at a market clearing price.
Doesn't mean we should do anything about it. There will always be some extra activity that would take place at a lower price, but it's worth while to notice that.
For instance, take something with a small marginal benefit like a dedicated person at a supermarket to bag groceries. It's a nice to have but the value to the employer is probably less than a $15 minimum wage. So you could say there is a shortage of grocery baggers since there is no one willing to do it at a market clearing price.
Doesn't mean we should do anything about it. There will always be some extra activity that would take place at a lower price, but it's worth while to notice that.
While reading the article, the now-less-common business of vacuum and TV repair came to mind. I imagine it's easier than ever to repair vacuums, with improved tools and free internet repositories of schematics. But I only know of one store still doing this within 5 miles of my house. I haven't asked former vacuum repairmen, but my guess as to the reasons:
1) Labor costs go up with inflation
2) Rent goes up
3) New vacuum prices go down
At some point in the past, the downward line of vacuum price crossed over the upward line of repair cost. That's when this profession cratered.
Cars may have a while until that price point hits. But the quoted mechanic's suggestion that engineers optimize for simpler repairs instead of simpler production may be something similar. If simpler production makes the price of a new car $X cheaper, but increases the labor cost of repairs over the car's lifetime by $Y, there could be a time when X > Y.
1) Labor costs go up with inflation
2) Rent goes up
3) New vacuum prices go down
At some point in the past, the downward line of vacuum price crossed over the upward line of repair cost. That's when this profession cratered.
Cars may have a while until that price point hits. But the quoted mechanic's suggestion that engineers optimize for simpler repairs instead of simpler production may be something similar. If simpler production makes the price of a new car $X cheaper, but increases the labor cost of repairs over the car's lifetime by $Y, there could be a time when X > Y.
I remember reading an article about the last TV repair shop in Chicago many years ago in the Chicago Reader.
This would have been in the early 2010s.
The reporter asked the owner why TV repair was dying: were TVs getting too complicated? Help too hard to find or too expensive? Nope, the owner said it was 100% parts availability. The vast majority of business coming through the door he'd have to turn away because manufacturers didn't want him repairing their equipment.
There may sometimes be a tradeoff for manufacturability vs repairability but even when there is not -- holding everything else equal -- manufacturers will choose the less repairable option because they perceive it to be in their interest to do so.
This would have been in the early 2010s.
The reporter asked the owner why TV repair was dying: were TVs getting too complicated? Help too hard to find or too expensive? Nope, the owner said it was 100% parts availability. The vast majority of business coming through the door he'd have to turn away because manufacturers didn't want him repairing their equipment.
There may sometimes be a tradeoff for manufacturability vs repairability but even when there is not -- holding everything else equal -- manufacturers will choose the less repairable option because they perceive it to be in their interest to do so.
I think even the parts availability argument starts to fall apart with scales of economy in manufacturing. I can walk into Best Buy today and walk out with a brand new 65" QLED 4k TV for $299 + tax. How much money is someone willing to spend to fix a $300 item? Even if the parts are free, you're better off replacing it if it's going to take more than an hour to fix. Keep in mind the overhead of finding a repair shop, scheduling a drop off, dropping off the TV, waiting for the TV to be repaired, picking up the TV again and remounting it. You can cut more than half of those steps out by buying a new one and it'll be available within the hour. At the rate of progression, it may even be an upgrade!
Most of the time the failed part is either the power supply board or a backlight and they’re usually available as aftermarket if you can’t be bothered to isolate the failed micro component or LED “bulb” and solder one in from a donor. Or a flex cable that just needs reseating.
PS is probably harder nowadays since it might be more integrated but not 10+ years ago.
PS is probably harder nowadays since it might be more integrated but not 10+ years ago.
It's really amazing how I quoted a repair shop owner saying the problem is parts availability and got two responses basically saying "nuh uh."
I have a more recent personal experience. My parents refrigerator went out. The repair man came out and diagnosed it as a bad inverter board and he'd get the part and come back in a few days. Great! The next day he calls my dad and tells him the part isn't available from the manufacturer so he can't actually fix it.
So I helped my dad go on an internet search and we eventually found an aftermarket (counterfeit?) board and installed it ourselves. My parents were thrilled they didn't have to buy a new refrigerator, but the repair guy got paid for the diagnosis but didn't make any money for the repair. I don't know if that's a long term sustainable business.
I have a more recent personal experience. My parents refrigerator went out. The repair man came out and diagnosed it as a bad inverter board and he'd get the part and come back in a few days. Great! The next day he calls my dad and tells him the part isn't available from the manufacturer so he can't actually fix it.
So I helped my dad go on an internet search and we eventually found an aftermarket (counterfeit?) board and installed it ourselves. My parents were thrilled they didn't have to buy a new refrigerator, but the repair guy got paid for the diagnosis but didn't make any money for the repair. I don't know if that's a long term sustainable business.
This is why when I replaced my appliances I chose GE/Hotpoint. GE does their own in house parts and service, and in particular Hotpoint is easy to fix with a screwdriver.
Tv repair made a lot more sense in the days of tubes which wore out quick but were easy to replace. Solid state generally lasts much longer and the parts that fail are not worth repairing.
This isn't true at all. Capacitors commonly blow on modern TVs and are cheap and easy to replace if you have the repair data.
A quick note to say that at our local repair cafe we do a roaring trade in vacuum repairs for peanuts (not literal peanuts; though some of our repairers do get peckish). If you're in Europe, there's chance you have one nearby. https://repaircafe.org/en
Could you please go in to a bit more detail on how you set that up, how you handle issues, etc? I'm a member of a makerspace, and there's been discussions about doing something similar. There's just not a consensus about how to go about it.
Reach out here: https://dallasmakerspace.org/faq/ (I'm not finding a good link for https://thelab.ms/ - another Dallas makerspace), but I'd suggest reaching out.
...generally I've seen weekly/monthly "fix-it" workshops as a kindof open-house / membership drive.
Probably best to 1) have people sign safety waivers, especially if they're not members 2) have people sign a "we can offer to help you try, but your widget might end up worse than before" waiver 3) run it as a volunteer outreach event with a focus on getting membership rather than a transactional "fix my ____ for free" outcome
...generally I've seen weekly/monthly "fix-it" workshops as a kindof open-house / membership drive.
Probably best to 1) have people sign safety waivers, especially if they're not members 2) have people sign a "we can offer to help you try, but your widget might end up worse than before" waiver 3) run it as a volunteer outreach event with a focus on getting membership rather than a transactional "fix my ____ for free" outcome
We have one here in town maybe twice a year; I wish it was a monthly thing.
great idea. I get a "coming soon" type message for my town and search does not say where the next nearest is.
I used the map and found the two nearest I quite far. plenty where I used to live, and a lot in other parts of the UK. Good to see.
I used the map and found the two nearest I quite far. plenty where I used to live, and a lot in other parts of the UK. Good to see.
That is because there is not a cost for the disposal of the broken vacuum. Imagine if we paid by the weight of our trash. Some of the right to repair laws are trying to change that by requiring replacement parts be available to purchase. https://www.repair.org/know-your-rights
I really like the idea of adding taxes (or subsidies) to make repairing things more economical than replacing them, when this is not the case already. It seems difficult to fairly decide how to do this, but charging by rubbish weight is at least objective and easily measurable.
It can be argued that all taxes and subsidies are "artificial distortions" of market value, but capitalism strongly encourages externalisation of costs -- "the cost of making X" is often severely underestimated by "the cost of running a machine to dig X out of the ground".
It can be argued that all taxes and subsidies are "artificial distortions" of market value, but capitalism strongly encourages externalisation of costs -- "the cost of making X" is often severely underestimated by "the cost of running a machine to dig X out of the ground".
TVs and vacuum cleaners are now a lot cheaper AND more reliable then they used to be.
Cars have become more reliable and relatively cheaper then they used to be, but they are a lot more expensive so have a long way to go until that point is reached.
Cars have become more reliable and relatively cheaper then they used to be, but they are a lot more expensive so have a long way to go until that point is reached.
TVs are definitely more reliable, but vacuum cleaners? I had a Dyson a few years ago and it didn't take long before plastic parts started to snap off. Meanwhile my mother in law's Electrolux or whatever is indestructible with occasional maintenance.
Also, new stuff just isn't designed to be opened up.
I took an old monitor that started failing to a local makerspace (which has a very popular monthly repair cafe), and it took some physical force to crack the case open. Once inside it was relatively easy to get the board out and find the leaking capacitors. Not exactly high-tech parts.
It was fun for me and for the volunteer, but I can't imagine anyone trying to do this for a living -- it would take a lot of time, and charging people for what the labor's worth would probably come close to the price of a new monitor.
I took an old monitor that started failing to a local makerspace (which has a very popular monthly repair cafe), and it took some physical force to crack the case open. Once inside it was relatively easy to get the board out and find the leaking capacitors. Not exactly high-tech parts.
It was fun for me and for the volunteer, but I can't imagine anyone trying to do this for a living -- it would take a lot of time, and charging people for what the labor's worth would probably come close to the price of a new monitor.
[deleted]
> While that's true, there is some market clearing price in which the activity just ceases to exist.
The article cites a mechanic commenting on Ford CEO's remarks on lack of mechanics by referring to how Ford fails to pay rates for warranty repairs that justify the volume of work required to pull them off.
This suggests the root cause is the automaker's refusal to pay for warranty work at a market rate.
The article raises some points on how Ford both designed cars that are too expensive to repair and fails to pay mechanics to make their product line attractive for any maintenance business. This doesn't sound like a market efficiency issue.
The article cites a mechanic commenting on Ford CEO's remarks on lack of mechanics by referring to how Ford fails to pay rates for warranty repairs that justify the volume of work required to pull them off.
This suggests the root cause is the automaker's refusal to pay for warranty work at a market rate.
The article raises some points on how Ford both designed cars that are too expensive to repair and fails to pay mechanics to make their product line attractive for any maintenance business. This doesn't sound like a market efficiency issue.
Not just market rate, but being totally wrong! My read of that article is that it's not gonna take 40 minutes to do the job, but because Ford says it'll take that long, that's what they're getting paid for. It seems like the bigger issue is that Ford gets to say how long it will take and what they say isn't remotely right. There's similar weirdness with flight attendants and how they get paid, because they don't get paid if they're not in the air, or something like that. If you zoom out, it's about not being willing to pay enough money, and at that level you'd be right. But if we zoom in a little, the ways in which they're not getting paid enough is also relevant. If I want to get paid for a honest days worth of work, everyone else all the way to the top better also be honest. It sucks when they're not, but as long as my paycheck cashes, I've got better things on my plate to contend with.
It's not clear to me what the difference is between what you're saying and what the parent comment says. Not being willing to pay the wages necessary to hire someone is pretty much exactly what they're saying as well.
The implied criticism in the original comment is that companies should pay more. They ignore that in a lot of cases it doesn't make structural sense for a role to exist above a given price.
> It's not clear to me what the difference is between what you're saying and what the parent comment says.
The key difference is whether rentism plays a role or not.
It's one thing to claim that no one will pay a mechanic if it's too expensive. It's an entirely different thing to claim that some employers are abusing their position to pressure wages to stay low to maximize their profit margin at the expense of their employees.
There's a good litmus test: is there a massive wave of car shop bankruptcies due to lack of business? Or are car shop owners complaining they can't get enough employees to keep up with demand?
The key difference is whether rentism plays a role or not.
It's one thing to claim that no one will pay a mechanic if it's too expensive. It's an entirely different thing to claim that some employers are abusing their position to pressure wages to stay low to maximize their profit margin at the expense of their employees.
There's a good litmus test: is there a massive wave of car shop bankruptcies due to lack of business? Or are car shop owners complaining they can't get enough employees to keep up with demand?
The auto repair business is still pretty fragmented in most areas so as a practical matter employers can't really pressure wages. Mechanics change jobs all the time to get a raise. The industry has a relatively high annual employee turnover rate.
They agree that corporations don't do things that aren't profitable, their implied disagreement is whether this is greedy/bad or merely rational/amoral.
In other words, the existence of a minimum wage implies there is also a minimum job, a job which if it were any less valuable to the company they wouldn’t pay anyone to do it.
> since there is no one willing to do it at a market clearing price
In your example there would still be people willing to do it, but the government doesn't allow it?
In your example there would still be people willing to do it, but the government doesn't allow it?
If the demand doesn't reach the minimum wage, is that even a shortage?
I'm not going to pay someone to punch me in the face but I wouldn't call that a shortage.
I'm not going to pay someone to punch me in the face but I wouldn't call that a shortage.
That doesnt make sense to me.
Seems like theres either a demand for something or there isnt.
And the amount of demand sets the rate of pay.
The invisible hand.
Seems like theres either a demand for something or there isnt.
And the amount of demand sets the rate of pay.
The invisible hand.
Demand is a function of price. At any given price there is a quantity demanded. To know the price you also need to know the supply function. There is a demand for socks but if no one is will to supply socks for less a million dollars, the quantity demanded of socks at that price could be 0.
In most markets seems like commodity level items and services like baggers and socks would have plenty of supply.
In a free market, commodity-level jobs will only happen at commodity-level wages. But it's not a free market, because of minimum wage laws. If you set the minimum wage too high, the number of baggers may go to zero, not because of supply but because of demand - the price is higher than any grocery store is willing to pay.
You can argue about the need for the minimum wage laws. You can argue about the morality of paying a living wage. But that's a different argument.
You can argue about the need for the minimum wage laws. You can argue about the morality of paying a living wage. But that's a different argument.
The demand curve might not be gradual, there might be demand for e.g. 1 million jobs at $15 but 100 at $16
In some countries there's something called a "minimum wage" that sets the minimum value of a job that is allowed to exist, and any job that isn't worth that amount ceases to exist, or has fewer people doing it, or has partial or full automation doing it.
[deleted]
There’s a demand, but the price we want to pay for “grocery baggers” is usually less than minimum wage, so the job usually can’t (legally) exist. The cost (wage) is fixed higher than the value added.
Every single time someone says "there's a shortage of <goods>", you can mentally substitute it for "we can't get <good> for cheap".
Try this with: housing, nvidia GPUs, toilet paper (when there's a pandemic)
Try this with: housing, nvidia GPUs, toilet paper (when there's a pandemic)
Technically true. I think a "shortage" is technically defined in terms of price. But the example of housing is a hint at the limitations of this rule. Sure, we'd like houses to be cheaper, but most buyers don't have the option to just pay more. So what do we actually do about it? Increase supply, yeah, but why is the supply limited? Well, it's various weird, annoying restrictions on housing that you don't see unless you dig past "lol they want it cheap".
> Sure, we'd like houses to be cheaper
People that can't achieve home ownership right now want houses to be cheaper.
People that already got theirs don't. Yeah, supply is a problem but it's more than that. Housing cannot both be an investment and broadly affordable, those two goals are in conflict.
We need to change the way we treat housing so that it cannot be used to both store and generate wealth.
People that can't achieve home ownership right now want houses to be cheaper.
People that already got theirs don't. Yeah, supply is a problem but it's more than that. Housing cannot both be an investment and broadly affordable, those two goals are in conflict.
We need to change the way we treat housing so that it cannot be used to both store and generate wealth.
Yep, that's a good pointer to why those annoying restrictions survive.
>but most buyers don't have the option to just pay more.
You can argue the same for labor as well. Everything from off-shore competition to strained government budgets are excuses for why employers "don't have the option to just pay more".
You can argue the same for labor as well. Everything from off-shore competition to strained government budgets are excuses for why employers "don't have the option to just pay more".
Sure, some of those might be worth looking into. But also, we can be a lot more cavalier about saying a company that can't pay its workers should go out of business than we are about saying that a family that can't afford housing should just live on the street. I think the latter case is more worth attacking directly.
The point is, shortages being a price phenomenon is not all that actionable. You can't avoid digging in to the details.
The point is, shortages being a price phenomenon is not all that actionable. You can't avoid digging in to the details.
We keep making the argument that supply is limited, ignoring corporate housing buyers, foreign investment (buying a house abroad might yield a visa), and people holding too much property. Limit these 3 and suddenly there's a lot more affordable housing on the market.
This logic assumes something is always available for sale somewhere at some price. It shouldn't hold when something is actually short to the point of rarity. If someone is unwilling to sell something that you can't buy elsewhere, this reasoning will conclude that its price is infinite.
Is there a difference between people and goods?
Of course not. That would ruin their analogy!
Honestly, between how soft-science macroeconomcis is, combined with the fact that this planet does not contain a single person willing to argue about it in good faith, makes it simply impossible to have real conversations around it, especially on the internet.
Honestly, between how soft-science macroeconomcis is, combined with the fact that this planet does not contain a single person willing to argue about it in good faith, makes it simply impossible to have real conversations around it, especially on the internet.
[deleted]
Not really, when you consider both the interests of the buyer or the seller. The buyer of course would rather like goods and services be cheaper. It might be tempting to say that "people" deserve special consideration over "goods", it breaks down when you consider that goods are also made by people. Moreover gatekeeping whether you can use the characterization of "we can't get ... for cheap" depending on whether the seller is sympathetic or not (ie. "people" vs "goods") is a blatant way of smuggling in a conclusion via wording, similar to "terrorists" vs "freedom fighters".
I don't think this is correct. The reasons economists separate capital and labor is that they do have different characteristics. Labor has skill, capital can have technology. Assets exist regardless of utilization, labor cannot be stored up in an inventory since labor is time which flows inexorably onwards.
A shortage of an asset is a reflection of inventory levels. A shortage of labor reflects a lack of skill or time OR a lack of willingness to pay for that skill and time.
They're different for good reasons.
A shortage of an asset is a reflection of inventory levels. A shortage of labor reflects a lack of skill or time OR a lack of willingness to pay for that skill and time.
They're different for good reasons.
>A shortage of an asset is a reflection of inventory levels [...] OR a lack of willingness to pay for that skill and time.
So the housing crisis in just an "inventory" issue? Maybe it's just that people aren't willing to pay enough for a dwelling in desirable coastal cities?
>A shortage of labor reflects a lack of skill or time OR a lack of willingness to pay for that skill and time.
How's this different than for goods? You're just substituting "time" for "production". Moreover
So the housing crisis in just an "inventory" issue? Maybe it's just that people aren't willing to pay enough for a dwelling in desirable coastal cities?
>A shortage of labor reflects a lack of skill or time OR a lack of willingness to pay for that skill and time.
How's this different than for goods? You're just substituting "time" for "production". Moreover
A shortage exists at a point in time, propensity to pay to make the asset may react to the demand for the asset, but there is no guarantee that supply of labor and capital meet at an efficient point. (art is a great example where the overlap between supply and demand may have no overlap at all for certain pieces).
Lack of demand for labor and skill can produce an asset shortage, but in an economy where supply and demand float, the theory is that shortages reflect supply-demand failures, and the degree to which supply of labor is invoked to solve shortages for goods depends on the elasticity of demand and the elasticity of supply.
Lack of demand for labor and skill can produce an asset shortage, but in an economy where supply and demand float, the theory is that shortages reflect supply-demand failures, and the degree to which supply of labor is invoked to solve shortages for goods depends on the elasticity of demand and the elasticity of supply.
But assets and technology itself is ultimately created by labour.
There might be an exception for natural resources that are exceptionally easy to exploit even without labour, like sunlight or fresh air.
There might be an exception for natural resources that are exceptionally easy to exploit even without labour, like sunlight or fresh air.
Also if you sideline too many goods, the goods can't rise up and force a new economy.
Someone here posted that the balance was better in the west in the past because the Soviet Union was sitting there on the sidelines like a boogy many to capitalists waiting if they pushed people too far.
Someone here posted that the balance was better in the west in the past because the Soviet Union was sitting there on the sidelines like a boogy many to capitalists waiting if they pushed people too far.
You’re right, although the mechanic’s claim here was more complicated and interesting than just “we’re getting underpaid”.
It was a good view into what exactly the car companies are doing, but essentially it was "we're getting underpaid" with extra steps.
The car companies have basically set up a monopsony with cartels, squeezed the mechanics out, and are now complaining that they squeezed them out too much.
The car companies have basically set up a monopsony with cartels, squeezed the mechanics out, and are now complaining that they squeezed them out too much.
> but essentially it was "we're getting underpaid" with extra steps
Oh, yeah, it's definitely them getting underpaid—but in a way that I wasn't expecting and was surprised to learn about.
Oh, yeah, it's definitely them getting underpaid—but in a way that I wasn't expecting and was surprised to learn about.
I think part of this may be that some of the market is buying EVs now. The amount of car repair necessary per person is decreasing overtime.
[deleted]
Very highly paid executive complains because the peasants aren't willing to work for nearly nothing. Where have I heard that before.
But Ivanovko brings up a great point: manufacturers are making their products difficult to repair, for a variety of reasons. In this case saving manufacturing costs increases profits, but at the cost to the owner of greater repair costs. Even for simple repairs. (And collision repair costs, ugh!) And that in turn drives up insurance costs. I'm amazed that people can afford today's vehicles.
The price will go up as the availability goes down. If you have a shortage of mechanics, each mechanic can raise his/her labor price. So, while you're saying "we can't get <profession> for cheap" this implies a lack of professionals or a structural problem increasing costs in a given industry, or both.
In the case of doctors and electricians, you have structural problems in both, but also a true shortage of individuals in electrician work (could be in the medical field too, but I can't speak to that).
In the case of doctors and electricians, you have structural problems in both, but also a true shortage of individuals in electrician work (could be in the medical field too, but I can't speak to that).
Sometimes, but I’m intimately familiar with a business that pays people like $20/hr while they’re training them (9mos) - then the pay goes to like $30/hr, and after a few years most of them are making like $90k+/year. No one wants the job because they don’t want to put in the time, and it takes a 2-5 years to for someone to be good at it. My point being is that there are a ton of people that have super short term thinking when it comes to this stuff (like next month not next five year)
Mechanics are one of the few professions in the US where corporate wage suppression is allowed by law. So it actually is a case of having a shortage because they can just move to another industry.
Agreed. It kinda worked for software for a bit since it was such a new field, so there could’ve been some truth to it just as a matter of time to get the systems in place to educate people.
Skilled labor (such as mechanics) require training and apprenticeship pipelines. If those pipelines don’t exist or are starved of people it doesn’t matter how much you’re willing to pay right now. Long term sure you can make that career path more appealing but it can and often is absolutely the case that companies would pay out the nose for employees with particular skills and are unable to find anyone. But sure let’s go with the standard Reddit pablum, why give it more thought than that?
That's what a shortage is, a short-term undersupply. Market forces will eventually correct the problem if allowed to operate normally (e.g. prices spike, incentivizing more supply), but like you said that takes time. If it's a shortage of goods it can take a while to ramp up production. If it's a shortage of skilled labor it can take a while for people to learn those skills. Either way it's fundamentally the same type of problem.
The market alone doesn’t work well with things like training that had feedback loops of several years. In German there is the term “Schweinezyklus”. It goes like this:
* companies complain about lack of trained workers
* more people start training
* after a few years companies complain about too many workers and don’t hire them
* people stop training
* companies complain about lack of trained workers
I was part of this in the 90s in mechanical engineering. When I started studying the job market was great. When I finished there were no jobs. Luckily I could jump to programming.
I think we are seeing the same with CS now. Too many people jumped into it.
* companies complain about lack of trained workers
* more people start training
* after a few years companies complain about too many workers and don’t hire them
* people stop training
* companies complain about lack of trained workers
I was part of this in the 90s in mechanical engineering. When I started studying the job market was great. When I finished there were no jobs. Luckily I could jump to programming.
I think we are seeing the same with CS now. Too many people jumped into it.
Predicting the future is indeed famously difficult, which is why even markets have a hard time with forecasting and responding to demand years into the future. I don't think such over corrections are a market failure, just a lack of omniscience.
The reason those pipelines dry up is because pay is too low.
Or we outsourced the juniors to India or replaced them with AI
Trying to move everyone up the value chain leaves a vacuum in the pipeline
Trying to move everyone up the value chain leaves a vacuum in the pipeline
[deleted]
OMG yes. So many people miss this, and many companies don't understand this.
Ya, and then people wonder why cars are so expensive to repair these days also. The market is at a breaking point, efficiency has to go along with the higher pay or it just won’t work out.
I recently acquired a new (to me) 2017 vehicle and took it to my independent mechanic who has been working on my cars for years. He is registered with the mfg. and has access to many of their proprietary diagnostics and tools, but warned me that there is very little he can do on the latest models. They are basically 'return to dealer' because of 'software'.
It's always been that way with new stuff though. Between exclusivity agreements and whatnot it takes time for the documentation and supplies to be available outside the dealership service supply chain.
Used to be most dealership software tools would work offline because of the global nature of vehicles. Therefore the software tools would leak to the public. Now it’s moving “to the cloud” and that’s getting more complicated.
[deleted]
Standard CEO: "I'll do anything to hire more skilled workers, except pay them a reasonable wage."
That's not really what Farley is saying if you read through the whole interview: https://www.theverge.com/podcast/784875/ford-ceo-jim-farley-...
e.g.
"We’re investing in trade schools and scholarships to recruit technicians for vehicle repair as well as our factories."
"But this is a society problem. The one that bothers me the most is cultural. We, as a culture, think that everyone has to go to an Ivy League school to be valuable in our society, yet we all know that our parents and grandparents made our country wonderful because of these kinds of jobs. There’s incredible dignity in emergency services, and people can have wonderful careers. But our society doesn’t celebrate those people like they do the latest AI engineer."
e.g.
"We’re investing in trade schools and scholarships to recruit technicians for vehicle repair as well as our factories."
"But this is a society problem. The one that bothers me the most is cultural. We, as a culture, think that everyone has to go to an Ivy League school to be valuable in our society, yet we all know that our parents and grandparents made our country wonderful because of these kinds of jobs. There’s incredible dignity in emergency services, and people can have wonderful careers. But our society doesn’t celebrate those people like they do the latest AI engineer."
>But our society doesn’t celebrate those people like they do the latest AI engineer.
He fails to mention that AI engineers probably get 4x the pay with a job that is less physically demanding.
He fails to mention that AI engineers probably get 4x the pay with a job that is less physically demanding.
Of course it is -- if you tout investments, that means previously you didn't invest. Whereas any competent business would be looking at demand, the head counts, ages, and doing some quick math.
And eg
> There’s incredible dignity in emergency services, and people can have wonderful careers.
Not really. Ask anyone who does it; you'll hear minimum wage or not much above, and piles of transport of fat people. ie huge risks to the joint health for the people stuck moving them.
And of course, dignity ain't cash. This The whole thing is an extended whinge that rounds to I don't want to pay more.
Plus the implicit idea that society is responsible for preparing employees for Ford, not Ford.
And eg
> There’s incredible dignity in emergency services, and people can have wonderful careers.
Not really. Ask anyone who does it; you'll hear minimum wage or not much above, and piles of transport of fat people. ie huge risks to the joint health for the people stuck moving them.
And of course, dignity ain't cash. This The whole thing is an extended whinge that rounds to I don't want to pay more.
Plus the implicit idea that society is responsible for preparing employees for Ford, not Ford.
Yeah, why do we as a society want high paying jobs that we're not forced to take 40 minutes of pay for hours of work? Clearly its the celebration that's missing.
That's the cultural issue that's talked about, which also caused the explosion of people trying to get into tech whether they actually liked the work or not.
Because the choice is/was - make $20/hr busting my ass with body breaking work and barely scrape by, or get a CS degree and live comfortably because no other career offers the pay required.
The cultural issue is - why aren't other careers paid as well? (Aka, why don't we value them). Someone risking bodily injury in a trade arguably should be paid more than most desk jobs, but they aren't.
Much like discussion here on HN about how we need an IC promotion path that doesn't lead to management, society needs equal opportunities for high paying careers across a variety of fields, not just white collar or tech work.
Because the choice is/was - make $20/hr busting my ass with body breaking work and barely scrape by, or get a CS degree and live comfortably because no other career offers the pay required.
The cultural issue is - why aren't other careers paid as well? (Aka, why don't we value them). Someone risking bodily injury in a trade arguably should be paid more than most desk jobs, but they aren't.
Much like discussion here on HN about how we need an IC promotion path that doesn't lead to management, society needs equal opportunities for high paying careers across a variety of fields, not just white collar or tech work.
Pay isn't set by culture. It's set by economics.
That said, building socioeconomics such that individual payrate is extremely critical and life changing is a societal problem.
That said, building socioeconomics such that individual payrate is extremely critical and life changing is a societal problem.
lol no that’s exactly what he’s saying, you just can’t read between the lines
[deleted]
Low pay and high effort.
This has been going on for 500+ years since the very dawn of capitalism.
This has been going on for 500+ years since the very dawn of capitalism.
He's also not allowed to take any shortcuts from the book procedure, which there frequently are a few available (use a long wobble extension bar and a universal joint and you can get in without taking off all of the stuff above that bolt, whatever). On the other hand, this is the warranty rate (meaning new cars, largely less rust, etc). Independent/non-dealer mechanics will typically charge more time than the warranty time estimate from the manufacturer to account for things like rusty vehicles with harder to remove bolts and such, though this is usually in the rate book they subscribe to from whatever information source they pay for (warranty + 20% or so).
The issue is that the estimated time for a job is probably a high estimate for a brand new car and probably a low estimate for a several year old car, and the risk of that is on the dealership. The dealership then pays mechanics an hourly wage ($20+, fairly high for well certified master mechanics) and assumes that the hours listed on the job from the manufacturer are accurate, leaving the mechanic to take the risk if it goes over. Generally, the dealership loses on this proposition too, since they lose out on business/bay/electric/heat/etc for the lost time, so they don't like warranty work. They can upcharge/charge for more time/etc on a job for a customer, not for warranty repair due to contractual obligations to the OEM. This is particularly bad for Ford, since they currently lead the industry in recalls and warranty spend, meaning that their dealership networks are getting a lot more of that kind of work with limited profit and no ability to turn it down.