7 ms·

They're going to eat our lunch because we let our legacy ICE vehicle manufacturers dictate the terms of the shift to electric. We have to be better about identi

They're going to eat our lunch because we let our legacy ICE vehicle manufacturers dictate the terms of the shift to electric. We have to be better about identifying economic developments that are likely to be concerns for domestic stability and national security, and not let greed and fear in the corporate class stop us from making the necessary changes. Another arena where we've already lost, in a sense, and will need to play hardball catch-up is healthcare: other countries have a more stable and hour-for-hour productive workforce because their workers can get preventative care and treatment for illnesses quickly and without a fuss. If we have to trash the medical insurance industry to reach parity with our peers, so be it.

bobthepanda 2y ago
Where are you seeing the US is a laggard in hour by hour productivity? The US is the best large country at this, coming in at #6 or #13 depending on the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_productivity#List_(Our_World_in_Data) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_pr...
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  Hm, that's measuring everyone against the same dollar; Americans are productive by this measure because everything is expensive. I wonder if there are other benchmarks for productivity, adjusted for local market basket.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    The source claims that the figures are measured in the "international dollar", which is adjusted for purchasing power in different countries.
  - toberoni 2y ago
    The numbers are in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) USD so they already measure how many goods in the local market basket can be bought per working hour (on average, as these GDP numbers don’t account for income or wealth distribution).
    - roenxi 2y ago
      For healthcare it might be getting to the point where the numbers are nearly incomparable. PPP seems like it'd be more inappropriate than usual for measuring a particular industry. US healthcare is known to be quirky. Although there doesn't seem to be any obvious evidence here that the US could be lagging behind. Per-person the US is still a bit of a productivity outlier to the upside. When they aren't legislatively restrained they tend to work hard and in an organised way.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  I guess that's measured off the entire GDP, divided by the whole working population? I would imagine most of US's GDP comes from services and finance, not manufacturing. Also if the US makes very expensive widgets, but can't make cars cheaply, it would still show up as high worker productivity. It's not really the same as engineering efficiency per (PPP) dollar.
gottorf 2y ago
> we let our legacy ICE vehicle manufacturers dictate the terms of the shift to electric Is that true? There was a policy push here to sell EVs, though there of course is continuing debate about what the magnitude of that push should be. The market so far in the US has spoken against greater adoption of EVs, for various reasons. OP's article doesn't mention or discuss two very salient factors: one, that EV use in Shanghai is massively subsidized, both at the point of sale (EVs are free to register, whereas ICE vehicle registration starts at $15k) as well as to the producers; and two, whether such a subsidy is in fact for the long-term benefit of the public. > other countries have a more stable and hour-for-hour productive workforce because their workers can get preventative care and treatment for illnesses quickly and without a fuss No one would argue that healthcare in the US couldn't be improved, but I disagree that the payment model is the biggest issue. The way I see it, the biggest issue by far is that people are just very, very unhealthy! A full three quarters of adults are either overweight or obese. No country can have a cost-effective healthcare system with this kind of population. And the distribution of healthcare spending is extremely lopsided, with the top 5% of spenders accounting for over half of all healthcare expenditure, and the bottom half of spenders comprising a mere 3% of spending[0]. (A few countries with socialized healthcare are starting to toy with the idea of just letting those high spenders die, with assisted suicide.) I don't know that a better system can be achieved without first promulgating a culture that values being healthy. [0]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-expenditures-vary-across-population/#Share%20of%20total%20health%20spending,%20by%20percentile,%202021 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...
- socksy 2y ago
  In a system where healthcare is socialized, you also get strong incentives to introduce policies that can reduce that cost. Examples would include the UK's ban on cigarette branding, introducing a tax on sugar in soft drinks, and banning smoking in public spaces. Where I live in Germany we have a system I would characterise as somewhere in-between a fully socialized single payer system and the American system (you have insurance companies you choose between, but you're required to have some kind of insurance, and there are a set of "public" insurances that must meet a certain standard at a certain price). But here I can't buy a sugar free Fritz Limo, nor go to a popular bar or club without inhaling smoke. Obviously countries can enact such policies without socialized health care, and things are not all sunshine and rainbows in the NHS. But I reckon that waiting around until there's a healthy populace before bringing in a better health system might not necessarily be the best strategy.
apsec112 2y ago
I mean, the ultimate reason why the US doesn't have China's electric vehicle policy is that the US is a democracy, and it would be massively unpopular. The median US voter is, like, a 40-something mother in a random suburb of Pennsylvania, who doesn't have a college degree, has a house with a mortgage, and is moderate but doesn't pay much attention to politics. To get Chinese policies enacted in the US, people like that would have to be convinced that mass-producing electric cars was more important than preserving local forests (need 'em for a factory site), paying workers prevailing wage (drives up production costs), keeping gas and ICE car registration cheap (makes electric less competitive), having cheap goods on sale at Walmart (strong currency makes imports cheap but exports expensive), avoiding noise and dust from construction (have to put the power lines somewhere), running a low government deficit (manufacturing subsidies aren't free), etc. There's a lot of trade-offs that people don't want to make.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Sprawl is the major difference and a major reason behind range anxiety. Chinese cities are very very dense, and very new due to urban redevelopment projects in the 2000s-2021. For example, the urban core of Shanghai is around 20 miles end-to-end, so the same size as Wichita end-to-end, yet has a population of around 20mil compared to 350k. This helps sustain both public transit as well as EVs with minimal range anxiety. The industrial policy aspect of EVs also helps ofc, but big picture it works with the range and size of Chinese metropolitan areas. The issue is the sprawl factor simply can't be solved in a country as spread out as the US, so long range batteries (looking at you Idemetsu Kosan and Toyota) or hybrids are the best solution in a sprawly semi-urban environment.
  - ZoomerCretin 2y ago
    Who drives more than 200 miles in a day?
    - alephnerd 2y ago
      Most people don't, but the perception of distances are different in the US versus China. The average round trip commute in the US is 42 miles [0] versus 11 miles in China [1]. This means the average American needs to charge almost 4x more often. Alternatively, imagine the range anxiety a Chinese driver might have with an EV with a range of 80 km/50 mi. When you purchase a vehicle, you also take into account edge cases like interregional or intercity travel like roadtrips, family, or business. Charging infra can get spotty very fast outside of dense regions. With the sheer density that most of China has, you don't have to worry about dead zones as much. Furthermore, that density also means you have alternative options for inter-city transit (eg. Sleeper Buses, Trains) that don't really exist at the frequency needed in the US. The differences in expected distances also plays a major role in EV design - a number of Chinese EVs at the lower price range (eg. BYD Seagull, Wuling EV) have much smaller trunk sizes compared to Western oriented hatchback EVs like the Nissan Leaf, because there isn't the need or the expectation to do almost all your shopping with your car when high density urban environments allow you to have various options downstairs or rapid delivery (like 1 hour delivery). Consumer Habits for Chinese are different from Americans, and the model that worked for China doesn't necessarily work for the US. That said, the Chinese style model would work well in similarly dense Western+Central Europe and Japan. [0] - https://www.axios.com/2024/03/24/average-commute-distance-us-map https://www.axios.com/2024/03/24/average-commute-distance-us... [1] - http://service.shanghai.gov.cn/sheninfo/specialdetail.aspx?Id=01de1f87-936d-4999-ba8c-0dffaa397ffb http://service.shanghai.gov.cn/sheninfo/specialdetail.aspx?I...

bobthepanda 2y ago

Where are you seeing the US is a laggard in hour by hour productivity? The US is the best large country at this, coming in at #6 or #13 depending on the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_productivity#List_(Our_World_in_Data) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_pr...

jazzyjackson 2y ago
Hm, that's measuring everyone against the same dollar; Americans are productive by this measure because everything is expensive. I wonder if there are other benchmarks for productivity, adjusted for local market basket.
- gottorf 2y ago
  The source claims that the figures are measured in the "international dollar", which is adjusted for purchasing power in different countries.
- toberoni 2y ago
  The numbers are in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) USD so they already measure how many goods in the local market basket can be bought per working hour (on average, as these GDP numbers don’t account for income or wealth distribution).
  - roenxi 2y ago
    For healthcare it might be getting to the point where the numbers are nearly incomparable. PPP seems like it'd be more inappropriate than usual for measuring a particular industry. US healthcare is known to be quirky. Although there doesn't seem to be any obvious evidence here that the US could be lagging behind. Per-person the US is still a bit of a productivity outlier to the upside. When they aren't legislatively restrained they tend to work hard and in an organised way.
rich_sasha 2y ago
I guess that's measured off the entire GDP, divided by the whole working population? I would imagine most of US's GDP comes from services and finance, not manufacturing. Also if the US makes very expensive widgets, but can't make cars cheaply, it would still show up as high worker productivity. It's not really the same as engineering efficiency per (PPP) dollar.

gottorf 2y ago

> we let our legacy ICE vehicle manufacturers dictate the terms of the shift to electric Is that true? There was a policy push here to sell EVs, though there of course is continuing debate about what the magnitude of that push should be. The market so far in the US has spoken against greater adoption of EVs, for various reasons. OP's article doesn't mention or discuss two very salient factors: one, that EV use in Shanghai is massively subsidized, both at the point of sale (EVs are free to register, whereas ICE vehicle registration starts at $15k) as well as to the producers; and two, whether such a subsidy is in fact for the long-term benefit of the public. > other countries have a more stable and hour-for-hour productive workforce because their workers can get preventative care and treatment for illnesses quickly and without a fuss No one would argue that healthcare in the US couldn't be improved, but I disagree that the payment model is the biggest issue. The way I see it, the biggest issue by far is that people are just very, very unhealthy! A full three quarters of adults are either overweight or obese. No country can have a cost-effective healthcare system with this kind of population. And the distribution of healthcare spending is extremely lopsided, with the top 5% of spenders accounting for over half of all healthcare expenditure, and the bottom half of spenders comprising a mere 3% of spending[0]. (A few countries with socialized healthcare are starting to toy with the idea of just letting those high spenders die, with assisted suicide.) I don't know that a better system can be achieved without first promulgating a culture that values being healthy. [0]: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-expenditures-vary-across-population/#Share%20of%20total%20health%20spending,%20by%20percentile,%202021 https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

socksy 2y ago
In a system where healthcare is socialized, you also get strong incentives to introduce policies that can reduce that cost. Examples would include the UK's ban on cigarette branding, introducing a tax on sugar in soft drinks, and banning smoking in public spaces. Where I live in Germany we have a system I would characterise as somewhere in-between a fully socialized single payer system and the American system (you have insurance companies you choose between, but you're required to have some kind of insurance, and there are a set of "public" insurances that must meet a certain standard at a certain price). But here I can't buy a sugar free Fritz Limo, nor go to a popular bar or club without inhaling smoke. Obviously countries can enact such policies without socialized health care, and things are not all sunshine and rainbows in the NHS. But I reckon that waiting around until there's a healthy populace before bringing in a better health system might not necessarily be the best strategy.

apsec112 2y ago

I mean, the ultimate reason why the US doesn't have China's electric vehicle policy is that the US is a democracy, and it would be massively unpopular. The median US voter is, like, a 40-something mother in a random suburb of Pennsylvania, who doesn't have a college degree, has a house with a mortgage, and is moderate but doesn't pay much attention to politics. To get Chinese policies enacted in the US, people like that would have to be convinced that mass-producing electric cars was more important than preserving local forests (need 'em for a factory site), paying workers prevailing wage (drives up production costs), keeping gas and ICE car registration cheap (makes electric less competitive), having cheap goods on sale at Walmart (strong currency makes imports cheap but exports expensive), avoiding noise and dust from construction (have to put the power lines somewhere), running a low government deficit (manufacturing subsidies aren't free), etc. There's a lot of trade-offs that people don't want to make.

alephnerd 2y ago
Sprawl is the major difference and a major reason behind range anxiety. Chinese cities are very very dense, and very new due to urban redevelopment projects in the 2000s-2021. For example, the urban core of Shanghai is around 20 miles end-to-end, so the same size as Wichita end-to-end, yet has a population of around 20mil compared to 350k. This helps sustain both public transit as well as EVs with minimal range anxiety. The industrial policy aspect of EVs also helps ofc, but big picture it works with the range and size of Chinese metropolitan areas. The issue is the sprawl factor simply can't be solved in a country as spread out as the US, so long range batteries (looking at you Idemetsu Kosan and Toyota) or hybrids are the best solution in a sprawly semi-urban environment.
- ZoomerCretin 2y ago
  Who drives more than 200 miles in a day?
  - alephnerd 2y ago
    Most people don't, but the perception of distances are different in the US versus China. The average round trip commute in the US is 42 miles [0] versus 11 miles in China [1]. This means the average American needs to charge almost 4x more often. Alternatively, imagine the range anxiety a Chinese driver might have with an EV with a range of 80 km/50 mi. When you purchase a vehicle, you also take into account edge cases like interregional or intercity travel like roadtrips, family, or business. Charging infra can get spotty very fast outside of dense regions. With the sheer density that most of China has, you don't have to worry about dead zones as much. Furthermore, that density also means you have alternative options for inter-city transit (eg. Sleeper Buses, Trains) that don't really exist at the frequency needed in the US. The differences in expected distances also plays a major role in EV design - a number of Chinese EVs at the lower price range (eg. BYD Seagull, Wuling EV) have much smaller trunk sizes compared to Western oriented hatchback EVs like the Nissan Leaf, because there isn't the need or the expectation to do almost all your shopping with your car when high density urban environments allow you to have various options downstairs or rapid delivery (like 1 hour delivery). Consumer Habits for Chinese are different from Americans, and the model that worked for China doesn't necessarily work for the US. That said, the Chinese style model would work well in similarly dense Western+Central Europe and Japan. [0] - https://www.axios.com/2024/03/24/average-commute-distance-us-map https://www.axios.com/2024/03/24/average-commute-distance-us... [1] - http://service.shanghai.gov.cn/sheninfo/specialdetail.aspx?Id=01de1f87-936d-4999-ba8c-0dffaa397ffb http://service.shanghai.gov.cn/sheninfo/specialdetail.aspx?I...