The very first line begins: Take a look around the American automotive landscape
Which seems is a prevailing mindset of the US administration (which infects those at lower, but still leadership, levels due to the short term legal and financial 'influence' of the administration): Denial of the changing world. Classic uber-conservatism, which works until it, explosively or revolutionarily, breaks. The ripples of which affect the innocent most of all.
(I'm more progressive than conservative, for roughly my own definition of what those loaded terms mean, but I'm also aware of the social problems caused by uber-progressiveness, which bumps up against humanity's basic resistance to change, or too much change too quickly).
The world kinda feels stuck between the 'uber' of both sides, with very little conversation covering the majority middle.
All the major US OEMs are dead companies walking. Even the CEO of Ford said if Chinese automobiles are allowed into the US it will be the death of US manufacturing.
Total acknowledgment US vehicles are inferior, but no desire or drive to compete, only stifle.
It’s sad, and the outcome is entirely predictable.
It will be interesting to watch such predictions play out.
I'll guess that it's not quite like that.
First, propaganda is powerful, and people buy based on what they believe. And right now, U.S. car buyers do not universally believe that EV is better than gas/hybrid, nor do they believe the cheapest car is best, or that features are the only thing that matters.
In fact, they go to a dealership, probably for a brand they are already somewhat loyal to, or the marketing worked. And they buy whatever their monthly payment allows, even if it's a lot more car than they need.
Second, they like big "American" cars like pickup trucks and huge SUVs. Take a look at how many full-sized pickups are sold every year in the U.S. Until the foreign-made full-sized electric trucks are palatable and competitive with what U.S. buyers are currently buying, those OEMs will continuing making and selling them.
"Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft are on track to provide urban air transit within the next few years, targeting the high-margin commuters who traditionally buy premium vehicles."
Okay. So... flying cars? Don't think so. Robotaxis make sense where taxis make sense and you can get by without a car already. The demographic decline is real.
Because a single autonomous vehicle operating in a shared
fleet can replace multiple privately owned cars, the
widespread adoption of this technology can’t help but
reduce new-car sales volumes.
The old "Thing will become more useful so we'll make less of it" argument. No mention of Jevons Paradox?
If we can travel and send stuff around from point A to point B cheaply and instantly by dropping ourselves or an item into an ocean of cars roaming our streets autonomously, there is a lot more demand for rides.
Also comfortably traveling longer distances might alter where we live. If we can walk out the door, sit down in a comfortable robotaxi right away and exit in the city center 10 minutes later, we might not have to live right in the city center anymore. Another driver for more demand.
First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction.
Second, scooters and bikes need infrastructure, which in 99.99% of the US, is not made for this. In fact, current infrastructure is very much hostile to bicycles and scooters, so in order for this to work, there's going to have to be a massive investment in new infrastructure all over the US. Is this very likely? I wouldn't say so.
The US locked itself into using cars through massive, expensive infrastructure and culture and I don't see this changing easily.
The population growth slowing might be true, but it's still growing, and there's still a profit to be made there.
The new factories are going to replace manufacturing in foreign countries. I'm not sure the effects on supply will be drastic. It's just a matter of building cars domestically, avoiding tariffs and securing domestic pipelines.
Finally, asking these corporations to "look 20 years ahead" instead of maximizing short term profits, is a common tradeoff that they are all aware of. Currently, short term gains is what's being preferred in almost every industry. I doubt any board members will vote to leave money on the table for long term benefits. More money now always wins.
If your theory is true we might see an era where supply vastly exceeds demand and car manufacturers will need to offset brand new vehicles to keep cash flow going. Sounds great to me, sign me up for 20$k brand new Ford when the time’s ready.
An ad in a 1972 Race Program touts a brand new Toyota for $1200 (for a sedan, not including tax, freight and handling, etc.).
I ran an inflation calculator and… where are the $10K cars for sale today?
(To be sure, I know there are safety standards, other things that will make the Datsun sedan un-sellable today, but come on, can't we get even close to $10K?)
You sell less to people living in the cities but maybe you sell more to the operators of fleets of rental cars, even self driving if that really becomes mainstream. Not enough to match the decrease of sales.
You keep selling to people living in countryside, where you don't go anywhere without a car and where fleets of cars would have to be very large to be able to cover the territory in a meaningful way. There will be less and less people living there but it could affect the kind of cars that are manufactured. By the way, a self driving car would be very useful to elderly people living in their house far away from the nearest town.
Technology is a fickle thing. The first production passenger car was created in 1886. The model t came out in 1908. We have had cars for 150 years, but that doesn't mean that they will be the standard for the next 150 years. In my life I have seen the land line telephone and radio go from core fixtures in a house to rare techno-memorabilia. (My house actually has a telephone nook. How many houses have tv nooks built for old CRT displays that will never be needed?) If you told me 25 years ago I wouldn't have a land line in the future I would have been shocked. Now it is ridiculous to even consider getting one and I haven't had one for a decade. Can you even buy a land line phone anymore?
Transportation is going through many massive changes right now. I haven't driven to the office in a decade. Huge segments of the workforce are migrating to exoburbs because they don't need to drive to work anymore. My son hasn't mentioned wanting to drive. My neighbor's kid flat out says she doesn't want to learn (both will be able to soon) and many of their friends don't want to learn either. There is a generation growing up far less invested in the car than the generation before them. Some of the points in this article may not be perfect, predicting the future is a fools bet, but it sure feels like the trend they are bringing up is real.
Some car companies are purposefully positioning themselves to have fewer customers as they've learned that they are much more profitable selling a small number of high margin vehicles to a few people instead of a large number of low margin vehicles to a lot of people.
It was going so well until it mentioned VTOL aircraft. It's been 100 years of this sci-fi dream man... People need to understand that nobody wants drones or "flying cars" above their head or property...
Maybe if companies actually cared for their employees, paid them more, provided excellent security, worked with unions. Maybe it won’t all come crashing down.
Maybe if the venture capitalists private equity, and their billionaire handlers didn’t fuck around with every industry that working people depend on. Then maybe the flow of goods would continue.
Maybe if C-level idiots invested profits into the companies rather than in short term gains (ie, stock buybacks). Then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation where a collective <1% of people own a majority of the capital.
If we had a government that actually cared about the welfare of its citizens, we wouldn’t have to depend on companies that enshittify their products and betray their founding principles. Imagine an ecosystem where you didn’t have to force yourself to go to a shitty job you hate because you depend on it for healthcare (fuck private health insurance), an income, and other needs.
America is the richest country in the world yet a majority of citizens are pushed to the brink of poverty despite working 40+ hrs.
> Because a single autonomous vehicle operating in a shared fleet can replace multiple privately owned cars, the widespread adoption of this technology can’t help but reduce new-car sales volumes.
The idea that that a huge number of people will give up their private cars for robot-taxis in the next 20 years is laughable. They don't even exist in the vast majority of the country, and it's not even clear that they can function everywhere with our current technology. In just the past year we've seen how the technology we have today is still struggling with how to properly deal with basic things like red traffic lights and school buses.
They haven't even come close to replacing the private cars in the few areas where they do operate. Most people like to be able to go wherever they want whenever they want without begging someone else to come and get them then waiting around for the ride to show up. They like to keep stuff in their cars. They like not having to worry about availability or surge pricing/price gouging or that a lost phone or dead battery or broken app will leave them stranded. If anything will keep Americans from buying new cars it will be because they can't afford them. You can bet it won't be the sudden popularity of "Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft"!
One reason I'm starting to see turn people away from new cars are the anti-features. My next new car will already be an old car because I don't want a camera recording my face the entire time I drive, or microphones recording my conversations, or basic controls buried in touchscreen menus, or features that cause my car to brake unexpectedly or jerk the wheel suddenly from under my hands, or make me pay a monthly subscription fee for anything. I don't want a car that gets software updates over the air. I don't want it internet connected at all. I want my car to work for me and do what I tell it to do.
The article isn't talking about total number of cars in America, which likely won't go down substantially. It's taking about new car sales. If people start using robotaxis more, the car in their driveway gets used less and replaced less often. Old people own as many cars as young people, but drive less so replace less frequently.
> The idea that that a huge number of people will give up their private cars for robot-taxis in the next 20 years is laughable. They don't even exist in the vast majority of the country, and it's not even clear that they can function everywhere with our current technology. In just the past year we've seen how the technology we have today is still struggling with how to properly deal with basic things like red traffic lights and school buses
(2007)
The idea that smartphones will replace landlines in the next 20 years is laughable. The CEO of the biggest competitor even wrote it off as too expensive.
Same identical story with reusable rockets, right down to the competition saying it will never happen.
Same identical story with other industries and products.
My point is, When it happens, it will happen fast. Also cars are even more likely to do this because you have to Keep in mind that outside enthusiasts, nobody wants the expense and hassle of private car ownership.
They want the convenience of personal transport, but they’re stupidly expensive.
The first company that gives the mass market what they want at scale will be massive.
Cars have become obscenely expensive and auto makers seem to be incorporating more and more planned obsolescence into their designs, so I've decided I'm just going to keep driving my aging car for as long as I can and maybe just get an e-bike for short trips to the market. It really feels like the auto industry is made up of dinosaurs who don't see the asteroid coming their way.
Will robotaxis actually reduce demand? A taxi that does 10X as many passenger miles a day as a normal car may theoretically replace 10 cars but because of dead heading might be traveling more than 10X as many miles.
Cars today have an approximate lifespan of 200,000 miles. It might take a set of conventional owners 20 years to hit that, or a taxi company 2, but either way it's getting replaced after 200,000 miles. The taxi might be in slightly better shape, but taxi customers have higher expectations than buyers of 15 year old cars.
Replacing 1/10 the number of cars 10x as often is the same demand.
With EV technology it should be possible to design a million mile car. Electric motors can easily do that, and LFP batteries can get close. But interiors and suspensions still cannot do a million.
When we see interiors made out of the same materials as subway cars, that might be a sign of future lowered demand.
28 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 54.7 ms ] threadThe very first line begins: Take a look around the American automotive landscape
Which seems is a prevailing mindset of the US administration (which infects those at lower, but still leadership, levels due to the short term legal and financial 'influence' of the administration): Denial of the changing world. Classic uber-conservatism, which works until it, explosively or revolutionarily, breaks. The ripples of which affect the innocent most of all.
(I'm more progressive than conservative, for roughly my own definition of what those loaded terms mean, but I'm also aware of the social problems caused by uber-progressiveness, which bumps up against humanity's basic resistance to change, or too much change too quickly).
The world kinda feels stuck between the 'uber' of both sides, with very little conversation covering the majority middle.
Total acknowledgment US vehicles are inferior, but no desire or drive to compete, only stifle.
It’s sad, and the outcome is entirely predictable.
I'll guess that it's not quite like that.
First, propaganda is powerful, and people buy based on what they believe. And right now, U.S. car buyers do not universally believe that EV is better than gas/hybrid, nor do they believe the cheapest car is best, or that features are the only thing that matters.
In fact, they go to a dealership, probably for a brand they are already somewhat loyal to, or the marketing worked. And they buy whatever their monthly payment allows, even if it's a lot more car than they need.
Second, they like big "American" cars like pickup trucks and huge SUVs. Take a look at how many full-sized pickups are sold every year in the U.S. Until the foreign-made full-sized electric trucks are palatable and competitive with what U.S. buyers are currently buying, those OEMs will continuing making and selling them.
Okay. So... flying cars? Don't think so. Robotaxis make sense where taxis make sense and you can get by without a car already. The demographic decline is real.
If we can travel and send stuff around from point A to point B cheaply and instantly by dropping ourselves or an item into an ocean of cars roaming our streets autonomously, there is a lot more demand for rides.
Also comfortably traveling longer distances might alter where we live. If we can walk out the door, sit down in a comfortable robotaxi right away and exit in the city center 10 minutes later, we might not have to live right in the city center anymore. Another driver for more demand.
First, personal flying vehicles are definitely not going to be a common mode of transportation. If and when this happens, it will be for ultra rich, select few people, effectively replacing a private helicopter. We don't have the infrastructure, regulation or technology to have millions of people buzzing around in their astro-ford like the fifth element - this is still very much science fiction.
Second, scooters and bikes need infrastructure, which in 99.99% of the US, is not made for this. In fact, current infrastructure is very much hostile to bicycles and scooters, so in order for this to work, there's going to have to be a massive investment in new infrastructure all over the US. Is this very likely? I wouldn't say so.
The US locked itself into using cars through massive, expensive infrastructure and culture and I don't see this changing easily.
The population growth slowing might be true, but it's still growing, and there's still a profit to be made there.
The new factories are going to replace manufacturing in foreign countries. I'm not sure the effects on supply will be drastic. It's just a matter of building cars domestically, avoiding tariffs and securing domestic pipelines.
Finally, asking these corporations to "look 20 years ahead" instead of maximizing short term profits, is a common tradeoff that they are all aware of. Currently, short term gains is what's being preferred in almost every industry. I doubt any board members will vote to leave money on the table for long term benefits. More money now always wins.
I ran an inflation calculator and… where are the $10K cars for sale today?
(To be sure, I know there are safety standards, other things that will make the Datsun sedan un-sellable today, but come on, can't we get even close to $10K?)
You keep selling to people living in countryside, where you don't go anywhere without a car and where fleets of cars would have to be very large to be able to cover the territory in a meaningful way. There will be less and less people living there but it could affect the kind of cars that are manufactured. By the way, a self driving car would be very useful to elderly people living in their house far away from the nearest town.
In any case, less cars.
Transportation is going through many massive changes right now. I haven't driven to the office in a decade. Huge segments of the workforce are migrating to exoburbs because they don't need to drive to work anymore. My son hasn't mentioned wanting to drive. My neighbor's kid flat out says she doesn't want to learn (both will be able to soon) and many of their friends don't want to learn either. There is a generation growing up far less invested in the car than the generation before them. Some of the points in this article may not be perfect, predicting the future is a fools bet, but it sure feels like the trend they are bringing up is real.
Why consider flying cars when teleportation may be just a few more years away?
Are these teenagers buying new cars in the room with us now?
Maybe if the venture capitalists private equity, and their billionaire handlers didn’t fuck around with every industry that working people depend on. Then maybe the flow of goods would continue.
Maybe if C-level idiots invested profits into the companies rather than in short term gains (ie, stock buybacks). Then maybe we wouldn’t be in this situation where a collective <1% of people own a majority of the capital.
If we had a government that actually cared about the welfare of its citizens, we wouldn’t have to depend on companies that enshittify their products and betray their founding principles. Imagine an ecosystem where you didn’t have to force yourself to go to a shitty job you hate because you depend on it for healthcare (fuck private health insurance), an income, and other needs.
America is the richest country in the world yet a majority of citizens are pushed to the brink of poverty despite working 40+ hrs.
The idea that that a huge number of people will give up their private cars for robot-taxis in the next 20 years is laughable. They don't even exist in the vast majority of the country, and it's not even clear that they can function everywhere with our current technology. In just the past year we've seen how the technology we have today is still struggling with how to properly deal with basic things like red traffic lights and school buses.
They haven't even come close to replacing the private cars in the few areas where they do operate. Most people like to be able to go wherever they want whenever they want without begging someone else to come and get them then waiting around for the ride to show up. They like to keep stuff in their cars. They like not having to worry about availability or surge pricing/price gouging or that a lost phone or dead battery or broken app will leave them stranded. If anything will keep Americans from buying new cars it will be because they can't afford them. You can bet it won't be the sudden popularity of "Vertical Takeoff and Landing aircraft"!
One reason I'm starting to see turn people away from new cars are the anti-features. My next new car will already be an old car because I don't want a camera recording my face the entire time I drive, or microphones recording my conversations, or basic controls buried in touchscreen menus, or features that cause my car to brake unexpectedly or jerk the wheel suddenly from under my hands, or make me pay a monthly subscription fee for anything. I don't want a car that gets software updates over the air. I don't want it internet connected at all. I want my car to work for me and do what I tell it to do.
(2007) The idea that smartphones will replace landlines in the next 20 years is laughable. The CEO of the biggest competitor even wrote it off as too expensive.
Same identical story with reusable rockets, right down to the competition saying it will never happen.
Same identical story with other industries and products.
My point is, When it happens, it will happen fast. Also cars are even more likely to do this because you have to Keep in mind that outside enthusiasts, nobody wants the expense and hassle of private car ownership.
They want the convenience of personal transport, but they’re stupidly expensive. The first company that gives the mass market what they want at scale will be massive.
Eventually, the truth will emerge, possibly with the collapse of the auto subprime loans and the car financing industry.
But what to do?
Don’t build factory capacity and manifest decline? Not likely.
They’re betting success will find a way and those factories will be needed. It’s all they can really do.
Cars today have an approximate lifespan of 200,000 miles. It might take a set of conventional owners 20 years to hit that, or a taxi company 2, but either way it's getting replaced after 200,000 miles. The taxi might be in slightly better shape, but taxi customers have higher expectations than buyers of 15 year old cars.
Replacing 1/10 the number of cars 10x as often is the same demand.
With EV technology it should be possible to design a million mile car. Electric motors can easily do that, and LFP batteries can get close. But interiors and suspensions still cannot do a million.
When we see interiors made out of the same materials as subway cars, that might be a sign of future lowered demand.