Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday November 13 2017, @11:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the Detroit-on-another-deathwatch-and-still-doesn't-know-it dept.

The BBC and many other sources report:

The US car industry will be wrecked if President Trump relaxes emissions standards, California's governor says.

Jerry Brown said China would dominate car manufacture because it was heavily promoting the electric vehicles that would dominate the future.

He said huge investment was needed on electric vehicles, along with federal rules to encourage their purchase.

He said President Trump and US car-makers were "half asleep" and hadn't understood the scale of the challenge.

He told BBC Radio 4's Costing the Earth: "There will be a serious threat to the US auto industry.

Unlike many in Silicon Valley, Gov. Brown seems to want the USA car industry to survive this Chinese nationally supported onslaught.

While not specifically mentioned in the article, China is working on cars at all price points, not just early adopters that can afford a Tesla or other luxury car. The Chinese stuff may be junk now (think about the batteries in Chinese "hoverboards") but it won't be for long, they learn fast. Here's a little minivan that's headed to production, https://carnewschina.com/2017/09/28/new-photos-sinogold-gm3-electric-mpv-china/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday November 14 2017, @12:41AM (13 children)

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @12:41AM (#596584)

    I think we are just about at the Armageddon point for the industry. It's setup for an America that no longer exists. Young people are not lining up to saddle themselves with debt for a car, and instead turn to other solutions like Uber and Lyft, or public transit options. As for the awful quality junk the Chinese produce, that's inside American automobiles too. All the industry jobs went away with outsourcing, which weakened the Middle Class substantially, and has helped create a Middle Class unable to afford automobiles. At least not at the rate the U.S auto industry has been used to. Toyota is a foreign company, but has U.S based factories. So not everything needs to be outsourced and killing the local communities.

    The real issue is going to come when we no longer need to drive our automobiles. Tesla and newer companies are going to eat the old entrenched auto industry's lunch. There will be manufacturers that provide AI vehicles, and most if not all of those, will be electric or hybrid. Manufacturers that provide technology used in these cars aren't waiting on the U.S auto industry.

    Regardless of nationalism, an American isn't going to spend 30k+ on an automobile that requires financing, maintenancing, garaging, and insurance when the upfront costs of being driven by an AI vehicle is orders of magnitude less. We've created an America that is less dependent upon transportation (look at the young people and the Internet), and less able to provide their own dedicated vehicle for transportation.

    That's when the auto industry craters. When marketers scream the question, "Don't you want a your own car!!?", and the average person shrugs and answers, "Yeah, but like, why man?"

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday November 14 2017, @12:56AM (2 children)

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 14 2017, @12:56AM (#596588) Homepage Journal

    I expect that's due in large part to excessive student loan debt.

    When I was at Caltech I got a $15,000 student loan. I had lots of trouble making the payments, but I did pay it all off.

    Then I was able to buy a brand-new truck on credit.

    How much credit does a kid with $50000 in debt get from auto finance corporations?

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @01:06AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @01:06AM (#596591)

      From its own website [caltech.edu]:

      Estimated 2017-18 Undergraduate Cost of Attendance (Full-Time Enrollment)

      The chart below lists the estimated nine-month, full-time cost of attendance budget that is generally applicable to Caltech undergraduate students enrolled in the 2017-18 school year. With the exception of the Orientation Fee, all direct charges, i.e., tuition, fees, housing and board, are divided evenly between the fall, winter and spring terms.

      • Tuition: $48,111
      • FeesL $1,797
      • Housing/Room: $8,391
      • Board: $6,405
      • Additional Meal Allowance (est.): $900
      • Books and Supplies (est.): $1,323
      • Personal Expenses (est.): $1,974
      • Total Estimated Cost of Attendance: $68,901
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Tuesday November 14 2017, @01:09AM (8 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @01:09AM (#596592)

    > It's setup for an America that no longer exists. Young people are not lining up to saddle themselves with debt for a car,
    > and instead turn to other solutions like Uber and Lyft, or public transit options.

    You broke my bullshit detector! Look, people here know I'm not exactly a proponent of coal rolling in a V10 lifted pickup, yet I have to tag you, to be polite, as a blinder-wearing urbanite.

    Seriously. Only half of the country lives in cities, which means the other half HAS TO have a car, or two, or pretty much as many as they have drivers. Junkers will do, because freedom, man! What's the Uber/AI density in rural Penn when you need a grocery run at 7PM? What's that about the cops being minutes away when seconds count?
    Now, the city half, some of those do find the car not worth the hassle ... if they are the wrong kind of poor (because a nice car is still status among the starving), or young and connected appartment-dwellers. The moment they have a kid or two, those who can afford it WILL get a car in all but the densest craziest downtowns. Keeping your kid's shit in the car, and not having to answer for the regular accidents kids cause, is a giant barrier to car sharing.

    With 300 million americans, half of which still live in places where cars get beat up by the weather or roads, it's gonna be a while before Detroit has to worry about cars not selling at all, or the upstarts catching up on volume. It's gonna be a long time before the hundreds of billions that those cars are worth are provided by some car sharing companies.

    I want to believe it. But it will happen in Europe's and Asia's walkable cities long before the US...

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Tuesday November 14 2017, @04:49AM (1 child)

      by NewNic (6420) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @04:49AM (#596664) Journal

      Try 80% living in urban areas.

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 14 2017, @05:31PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @05:31PM (#596872)

        Let's define "urban" in this context... My city in SoCal is 50% bigger than Paris, France. Removing all the park areas, let's say it's about the same.
        My urban area has over 110k people, Paris has 20 times that.

        I'm only a big quarter mile from a bus station and a mile from shops. Most of the city isn't anywhere near that lucky. Let's not talk about bus schedules, nor the four trains a day towards the giant ugly metropolis an hour away.
        Urban...

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:57AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:57AM (#596706)

      Seriously. Only half of the country lives in cities, which means the other half HAS TO have a car, or two, or pretty much as many as they have drivers.

      Not only that, but all of North America, except few select areas, has infrastructure meant only for cars. Not people, for cars. Parking lots the size of parks. City streets the size of Autobahn. Seriously, it's really fucked.

      I've lived in North America for most my life and now I live in Germany. The difference cannot be more stark. I can walk from my home to work in 15 minutes. And no, my rent is less than $500 a month for a small apartment (and no, plenty like this available all over the city). There are 10 groceries stores within 10 minute walk, and I'm not talking 7/11, I'm talking normal grocery stores like LiDL, REWE, PENNY or Aldi. There is a bakery in my building and my building is not that unique. I have subway, tramway and bus, cyclepaths, kindergardens all within 100-200m. Schools within 1km. And no, no 30 floor high rises, but regular style 4 or 5 story townhouses (like in London, for example). Seriously. When someone mentions "walkable city" in North America, all you can do is laugh because they are fucking crazy. It's almost not even walkable to cross the street because they are so unnecessarily giant. The only place where I've seen a "regular" American-sized parking lot here is on the outskirts by IKEA and stores like that.

      So yes, I agree with parent post 100%. In America you fucking need a car to live anything other than some weird lifestyle they have in few urbanite elite areas like San Francisco or New York. The entire infrastructure there has been designed not about person, or a family, but all about the car and the fake lifestyle manufactured in 1960s. SAD!

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Tuesday November 14 2017, @11:46AM (1 child)

        by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @11:46AM (#596753) Journal
        When this came up in a previous discussion on the green site, someone pointed to a five and ten year analysis of the cost of buying a more expensive house / flat that's walkable to work versus buying a car. One is an appreciating asset, the other a depreciating asset. I was quite surprised that even in America, you will be better off if you buy a house somewhere where you can walk / cycle to work than if you buy a car. For most of Europe, it's much more obvious.

        When I was buying my first house (in a small city in the UK), I could spend about £110K to buy somewhere in the city centre, or about £85K to buy somewhere similar far enough out of town to need a car. That extra £25K on a mortgage would cost me about £1000/year, which is in the same ballpark the fixed costs associated with car ownership (tax and insurance), even if I don't drive it. Fuel, servicing, and depreciation all work out to about 30p/mile, so even driving it into town and back each day would cost me another £500 or so per year (assuming I found free parking each time, otherwise add another £2-5 each trip), so even if the house prices remained constant I'd be better off living in the middle of town than driving in. If house prices appreciated by 1% each year then at the end of five years I'd be another £1.2K better off and that amount goes up a lot more if house prices increase even more. Oh, and a lot of the reasons that I'd want to go into town involve alcohol, so I wouldn't be able to drive home anyway.

        As someone just young enough to count as a millennial, I did the calculation and found that a car was a financial burden that I didn't want and instead invested in living somewhere a short walk from shops, restaurants, and places of work instead.

        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Tuesday November 14 2017, @12:58PM

          by Spamalope (5233) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @12:58PM (#596770) Homepage

          That doesn't make up for the large property tax burden here. Or the cities like San Fran that began restricting new building to protect the look, but then lots of people bought at very high prices and we lose big time if the housing market supply caught up so most property owners are against new housing now.
          Where I live there is no property tax on car, but there is for homes.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday November 14 2017, @03:31PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 14 2017, @03:31PM (#596824) Journal

      I'll simply accept that half the population doesn't live in the city without argument. (Despite the outcome of the popular vote.)

      Now of that half that need vehicles, they want good vehicles.

      I think most American's have gotten the message: Detroit vehicles are junk.

      Even if that is no longer true, it will take at least one generation of people to learn that it isn't so. Just as it took a whole generation to learn that it was so. No wonder GM went bankrupt.

      So of half the population that needs to own cars, some of those might still try electric or alternately powered vehicles. If convenient charging infrastructure can be built. People that live in rural areas might benefit greatly from self driving cars, once the technology is truly ready and everything is sufficiently well mapped. And I suspect self driving will be of the modern car variety. Not the ad Marty McFly saw "convert your old clunker into a skyway flier for only $39,999.95!".

      IMO, this is not a pretty picture for American auto makers. I don't like that it is so. But I am willing to recognize that it is so rather than try to bend reality to my wishes.

      I'm sure that on farms, fuel powered big machinery will be the norm for a long time. And fuel powered pickoff trucks. Yet this is not a majority nor a large enough market to sustain Detroit.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:24PM (1 child)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @07:24PM (#596930) Journal

        I'm sure that on farms, fuel powered big machinery will be the norm for a long time. And fuel powered pickoff trucks. Yet this is not a majority nor a large enough market to sustain Detroit.

        I dunno. If you could have farm machinery and pickups that were EVs that you could charge with wind and solar on your land, why wouldn't you? Driving into town for any reason is a pain in the butt.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:50PM

          by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 14 2017, @10:50PM (#597036) Journal

          That is a very insightful point.

          At some point, the value generated from solar panels for a square acre of land, might exceed the value of anything you could grow on that same land.

          Alternately, windmills might be able to coexist on land along with crops.

          --
          People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:48AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @02:48AM (#596627)

    I'm sorry, young people can still purchase a serviceable dinojuice burner for about the annualized cost of insurance and maintenance, which with minimum wage at $15 per hour amounts to about a month of part time work. "Back in my day" minimum wage was closer to $3/hr take home, and a serviceable piece of ugly transportation cost about $1000. The "debt saddle" is much lower now than it was 30-40 years ago.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]