you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (30 children)

Because the government is subsiding those cars in a number of different ways; Attempt to control the global automotive and clean energy markets.

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Not to the same degree, or with the same goals.
    US subsidies are simply about corporate profits. China's are about over-producing and lowering prices to incentivize global adoption.

    Forks and knives are both silverware, but very different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    And because wages are lower as well. Manpower costs more in America than China by quite a bit. The article doesn't scale prices to purchasing power. It's not 5x as much anymore probably, but it's a significant amount.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    My guess is that manpower share is probably not that significant in the price of an EV.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Almost all costs come down to wages when you look at the economy of an entire country. The car factory pays wages and materials (grossly simplified to illustrate what I mean). The supplier they buy the materials from pays wages and raw materials. The place those raw materials come from pays wages and their own raw materials. And so on. At the end there's some guy in a mine swinging a pickaxe who's paid, you guessed it, a wage. (again, grossly simplified for illustration. Of course they use modern machinery, of course the supply chains are networks and not straight lines....).

    So when you produce in a country with a vastly lower level of wages, everything gets cheaper. The car maker doesn't only pay less in wages, they also pay less for steel sheets, cables, cloth and leather for seats, you name it, because those suppliers pay lower wages too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Almost all costs come down to wages when you look at the economy of an entire country.

    Yes. There is the matter of productivity somewhere in between, which is mainly linked to innovation and past capital expenses.

    they also pay less for steel sheets, cables, cloth and leather for seats

    Not really. These are already procured externally in a globalized world where manufacturing already left to low-wage places

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I occasionally watch an American YouTuber married to a Chinese man, living in china, and they can’t afford a car (my observation, she claims they don’t need one). They have recently upgraded to a bigger electric scooter as their family car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Most Chinese cities have extremely high registration fees which make car ownership impractical for most people. They also have great public transportation which tilts the calculus towards not needing a car if affordability is even remotely a concern.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    And they are winning. China is expected to dominate 4 of the top 5 auto manufacturer by 2030

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Seems like a missed opportunity by everybody else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Sorry, option not recognized. Listen carefully as our options have recently changed (weekly). Please choose from the following available ones:

    1. Kidnap foreign leaders we don't like and other threats to independent governments.
    2. Fund genocide.
    3. World wide inflation with this one simple trick (Strait of Hormuz).
    4. Look ma! No diapers (includes diapers).
    5. 1st amendment (billionaires only).
    6. Insider trading (WH friends & family only).
    7. All of the above (includes special bonuses and 1 meme coin!)
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    That's very nice of them to make stuff cheaper for me. If only my government wouldn't tack on 100% tariffs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    It's not. They aren't doing it for charity.
    It's just like when Amazon sold diapers at a loss. Once all the competition is gone, and China has the global monopoly they want, they'll use it to inflate prices even higher, or for leverage on other markets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Subsidizing practical applications of clean energy seems like a moral good to me.

    Are they attempting to control the market? Even if they are the solution is to produce a more competitive product, not sit on one's hands or double down on ICE vehicles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Are they attempting to control the market?

    Absolutely!
    A competitive product isn't the problem. It's the fact that they're intentionally pricing the cars below cost, loosing money on every vehicle. Once there's no real competition, they can leverage that market monopoly to to gain others, or simply increase prices well beyond what they naturally would be. Just like Amazon did with diapers and other markets.

  • source
  • parent