A big sticking point in contract talks between Detroit automakers and the United Auto Workers union is the popular assertion that it takes fewer workers to manufacture electric vehicles (EVs) than conventional cars.
EVs are inherently simpler than ICE vehicles. Of course it will eventually take fewer man hours to build one, and that’s where some of the eventual cost savings will come in from.
You can’t complain about the high cost of cars today and then turn around and want artificially inflated labor hours for EVs. You can’t have it both ways.
EVs have fewer moving parts than gas-powered vehicles, with no engines, transmissions or exhaust systems.
That didn’t stop the light bulb industry from baking in planned obsolescence.
Counterpoint to lightbulb planned obsolescence: https://youtu.be/zb7Bs98KmnY?si=h-i2U3Q8YE5tHW7G
This is the response I wanted to see but since people seem to hate watching videos (from creators they don’t know), iirc the tldw; balancing bulbs coming to full power immediately (as opposed to gradual warm up) and brightness with life span. The 100 year light bulb is cool, but not ideal for actually lighting a room
Battery cell manufacturing will be increasingly automated as volumes increase. So this idea didn’t hold water.
What do you mean? They’re arguing that EVs require less labour-hours of human work, you’re agreeing with them by saying that battery manufacture will be more automated.
