Code Monger, cyclist, sim racer and driving enthusiast.
7903 stories
·
5 followers

Pluralistic: Podcasting "Capitalists Hate Capitalism" (18 Apr 2024)

2 Shares


Today's links



An illuminated manuscript drawing of two serfs threshing wheat. Behind them is a portrait of a fat-cat type in a business suit, with a dollar-sign money-bag for a head.

Podcasting "Capitalists Hate Capitalism" (permalink)

This week on my podcast, I read "Capitalists Hate Capitalism," my latest column for Locus Magazine:

https://locusmag.com/2024/03/cory-doctorow-capitalists-hate-capitalism/

What do I mean by "capitalists hate capitalism?" It all comes down to the difference between "profits" and "rents." A capitalist takes capital (money, or the things you can buy with it) and combines it with employees' labor, and generates profits (the capitalist's share) and wages (the workers' share).

Rents, meanwhile, come from owning an asset that capitalists need to generate profits. For example, a landlord who rents a storefront to a coffee shop extracts rent from the capitalist who owns the coffee shop. Meanwhile, the capitalist who owns the cafe extracts profits from the baristas' labor.

Capitalists' founding philosophers like Adam Smith hated rents. Worse: rents were the most important source of income at the time of capitalism's founding. Feudal lords owned great swathes of land, and there were armies of serfs who were bound to that land – it was illegal for them to leave it. The serfs owed rent to lords, and so they worked the land in order grow crops and raise livestock that they handed over the to lord as rent for the land they weren't allowed to leave.

Capitalists, meanwhile, wanted to turn that land into grazing territory for sheep as a source of wool for the "dark, Satanic mills" of the industrial revolution. They wanted the serfs to be kicked off their land so that they would become "free labor" that could be hired to work in those factories.

For the founders of capitalism, a "free market" wasn't free from regulation, it was free from rents, and "free labor" came from workers who were free to leave the estates where they were born – but also free to starve unless they took a job with the capitalists.

For capitalism's philosophers, free markets and free labor weren't just a source of profits, they were also a source of virtue. Capitalists – unlike lords – had to worry about competition from one another. They had to make better goods at lower prices, lest their customers take their business elsewhere; and they had to offer higher pay and better conditions, lest their "free labor" take a job elsewhere.

This means that capitalists are haunted by the fear of losing everything, and that fear acts as a goad, driving them to find ways to make everything better for everyone: better, cheaper products that benefit shoppers; and better-paid, safer jobs that benefit workers. For Smith, capitalism is alchemy, a philosopher's stone that transforms the base metal of greed into the gold of public spiritedness.

By contrast, rentiers are insulated from competition. Their workers are bound to the land, and must toil to pay the rent no matter whether they are treated well or abused. The rent rolls in reliably, without the lord having to invest in new, better ways to bring in the harvest. It's a good life (for the lord).

Think of that coffee shop again: if a better cafe opens across the street, the owner can lose it all, as their customers and workers switch allegiance. But for the landlord, the failure of his capitalist tenant is a feature, not a bug. Once the cafe goes bust, the landlord gets a newly vacant storefront on the same block as the hot new coffee shop that can be rented out at even higher rates to another capitalist who tries his luck.

The industrial revolution wasn't just the triumph of automation over craft processes, nor the triumph of factory owners over weavers. It was also the triumph of profits over rents. The transformation of hereditary estates worked by serfs into part of the supply chain for textile mills was attended by – and contributed to – the political ascendancy of capitalists over rentiers.

Now, obviously, capitalism didn't end rents – just as feudalism didn't require the total absence of profits. Under feudalism, capitalists still extracted profits from capital and labor; and under capitalism, rentiers still extracted rents from assets that capitalists and workers paid them to use.

The difference comes in the way that conflicts between profits and rents were resolved. Feudalism is a system where rents triumph over profits, and capitalism is a system where profits triumph over rents.

It's conflict that tells you what really matters. You love your family, but they drive you crazy. If you side with your family over your friends – even when your friends might be right and your family's probably wrong – then you value your family more than your friends. That doesn't mean you don't value your friends – it means that you value them less than your family.

Conflict is a reliable way to know whether or not you're a leftist. As Steven Brust says, the way to distinguish a leftist is to ask "What's more important, human rights, or property rights?" If you answer "Property rights are human right," you're not a leftist. Leftists don't necessarily oppose all property rights – they just think they're less important than human rights.

Think of conflicts between property rights and human rights: the grocer who deliberately renders leftover food inedible before putting it in the dumpster to ensure that hungry people can't eat it, or the landlord who keeps an apartment empty while a homeless person freezes to death on its doorstep. You don't have to say "No one can own food or a home" to say, "in these cases, property rights are interfering with human rights, so they should be overridden." For leftists property rights can be a means to human rights (like revolutionary land reformers who give peasants title to the lands they work), but where property rights interfere with human rights, they are set aside.

In his 2023 book Technofeudalism, Yanis Varoufakis claims that capitalism has given way to a new feudalism – that capitalism was a transitional phase between feudalism…and feudalism:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/28/cloudalists/#cloud-capital

Varoufakis's point isn't that capitalists have gone extinct. Rather, it's that today, conflicts between capital and assets – between rents and profits – reliably end with a victory of rent over profit.

Think of Amazon: the "everything store" appears to be a vast bazaar, a flea-market whose stalls are all operated by independent capitalists who decide what to sell, how to price it, and then compete to tempt shoppers. In reality, though, the whole system is owned by a single feudalist, who extracts 51% from every dollar those merchants take in, and decides who can sell, and what they can sell, and at what price, and whether anyone can even see it:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/01/managerial-discretion/#junk-fees

Or consider the patent trolls of the Eastern District of Texas. These "companies" are invisible and produce nothing. They consist solely of a serviced mailbox in a dusty, uninhabited office-building, and an overbroad patent (say, a patent on "tapping on a screen with your finger") issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office. These companies extract hundreds of millions of dollars from Apple, Google, Samsung for violating these patents. In other words, the government steps in and takes vast profits generated through productive activity by companies that make phones, and turns that money over as rent paid to unproductive companies whose sole "product" is lawsuits. It's the triumph of rent over profit.

Capitalists hate capitalism. All capitalists would rather extract rents than profits, because rents are insulated from competition. The merchants who sell on Jeff Bezos's Amazon (or open a cafe in a landlord's storefront, or license a foolish smartphone patent) bear all the risk. The landlords – of Amazon, the storefront, or the patent – get paid whether or not that risk pays off.

This is why Google, Apple and Samsung also have vast digital estates that they rent out to capitalists – everything from app stores to patent portfolios. They would much rather be in the business of renting things out to capitalists than competing with capitalists.

Hence that famous Adam Smith quote: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." This is literally what Google and Meta do:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

And it's what Apple and Google do:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/27/23934961/google-antitrust-trial-defaults-search-deal-26-3-billion

Why compete with one another when you can collude, like feudal lords with adjacent estates who trust one another to return any serf they catch trying to sneak away in the dead of night?

Because of course, it's not just "free markets" that have been captured by rents ("Competition is for losers" -P. Thiel) – it's also "free labor." For years, the largest tech and entertainment companies in America illegally colluded on a "no poach" agreement not to hire one-anothers' employees:

https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/03/apple-google-other-silicon-valley-tech-giants-ordered-to-pay-415m-in-no-poaching-suit/

These companies were bitter competitors – as were these sectors. Even as Big Content was lobbying for farcical copyright law expansions and vowing to capture Big Tech, all these companies on both sides were able to set aside their differences and collude to bind their free workers to their estates and end the "wasteful competition" to secure their labor.

Of course, this is even more pronounced at the bottom of the labor market, where noncompete "agreements" are the norm. The median American worker bound by a noncompete is a fast-food worker whose employer can wield the power of the state to prevent that worker from leaving behind the Wendy's cash-register to make $0.25/hour more at the McDonald's fry trap across the street:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/02/its-the-economy-stupid/#neofeudal

Employers defend this as necessary to secure their investment in training their workers and to ensure the integrity of their trade secrets. But why should their investments be protected? Capitalism is about risk, and the fear that accompanies risk – fear that drives capitalists to innovate, which creates the public benefit that is the moral justification for capitalism.

Capitalists hate capitalism. They don't want free labor – they want labor bound to the land. Capitalists benefit from free labor: if you have a better company, you can tempt away the best workers and cause your inferior rival to fail. But feudalists benefit from un-free labor, from tricks like "bondage fees" that force workers to pay in order to quit their jobs:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/21/bondage-fees/#doorman-building

Companies like Petsmart use "training repayment agreement provisions" (TRAPs) to keep low-waged workers from leaving for better employers. Petsmart says it costs $5,500 to train a pet-groomer, and if that worker is fired, laid off, or quits less than two years, they have to pay that amount to Petsmart:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

Now, Petsmart is full of shit here. The "four-week training course" Petsmart claims is worth $5,500 actually only lasts for three weeks. What's more, the "training" consists of sweeping the floor and doing other low-level chores for three weeks, without pay.

But even if Petsmart were to give $5,500 worth of training to every pet-groomer, this would still be bullshit. Why should the worker bear the risk of Petsmart making a bad investment in their training? Under capitalism, risks justify rewards. Petsmart's argument for charging $50 to groom your dog and paying the groomer $15 for the job is that they took $35 worth of risk. But some of that risk is being borne by the worker – they're the ones footing the bill for the training.

For Petsmart – as for all feudalists – a worker (with all the attendant risks) can be turned into an asset, something that isn't subject to competition. Petsmart doesn't have to retain workers through superior pay and conditions – they can use the state's contract-enforcement mechanism instead.

Capitalists hate capitalism, but they love feudalism. Sure, they dress this up by claiming that governmental de-risking spurs investment: "Who would pay to train a pet-groomer if that worker could walk out the next day and shave dogs for some competing shop?"

But this is obvious nonsense. Think of Silicon Valley: high tech is the most "IP-intensive" of all industries, the sector that has had to compete most fiercely for skilled labor. And yet, Silicon Valley is in California, where noncompetes are illegal. Every single successful Silicon Valley company has thrived in an environment in which their skilled workers can walk out the door at any time and take a job with a rival company.

There's no indication that the risk of free labor prevents investment. Think of AI, the biggest investment bubble in human history. All the major AI companies are in jurisdictions where noncompetes are illegal. Anthropic – OpenAI's most serious competitor – was founded by a sister/brother team who quit senior roles at OpenAI and founded a direct competitor. No one can claim with a straight face that OpenAI is now unable to raise capital on favorable terms.

What's more, when OpenAI founder Sam Altman was forced out by his board, Microsoft offered to hire him – and 700 other OpenAI personnel – to found an OpenAI competitor. When Altman returned to the company, Microsoft invested more money in OpenAI, despite their intimate understanding that anyone could hire away the company's founder and all of its top technical staff at any time.

The idea that the departure of the Burger King trade secrets locked up in its workers' heads constitute more of a risk to the ability to operate a hamburger restaurant than the departure of the entire technical staff of OpenAI is obvious nonsense. Noncompetes aren't a way to make it possible to run a business – they're a way to make it easy to run a business, by eliminating competition and pushing the risk onto employees.

Because capitalists hate capitalism. And who can blame them? Who wouldn't prefer a life with less risk to one where you have to constantly look over your shoulder for competitors who've found a way to make a superior offer to your customers and workers?

This is why businesses are so excited about securing "IP" – that is, a government-backed right to control your workers, customers, competitors or critics:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

The argument for every IP right expansion is the same: "Who would invest in creating something new without the assurance that some­one else wouldn’t copy and improve on it and put them out of business?"

That was the argument raised five years ago, during the (mercifully brief) mania for genre writers seeking trademarks on common tropes. There was the romance writer who got a trademark on the word "cocky" in book titles:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/16/17566276/cockygate-amazon-kindle-unlimited-algorithm-self-published-romance-novel-cabal

And the fantasy writer who wanted a trademark on "dragon slayer" in fantasy novel titles:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/06/14/son-of-cocky-a-writer-is-trying-to-trademark-dragon-slayer-for-fantasy-novels/

Who subsequently sought a trademark on any book cover featuring a person holding a weapon:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/07/19/trademark-troll-who-claims-to-own-dragon-slayer-now-wants-exclusive-rights-to-book-covers-where-someone-is-holding-a-weapon/

For these would-be rentiers, the logic was the same: "Why would I write a book about a dragon-slayer if I could lose readers to someone else who writes a book about dragon-slayers?"

In these cases, the USPTO denied or rescinded its trademarks. Profits triumphed over rents. But increasingly, rents are triumphing over profits, and rent-extraction is celebrated as "smart business," while profits are for suckers, only slightly preferable to "wages" (the worst way to get paid under both capitalism and feudalism).

That's what's behind all the talk about "passive income" – that's just a euphemism for "rent." It's what Douglas Rushkoff is referring to in Survival of the Richest when he talks about the wealthy wanting to "go meta":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/13/collapse-porn/#collapse-porn

Don't drive a cab – go meta and buy a medallion. Don't buy a medallion, go meta and found Uber. Don't found Uber, go meta and invest in Uber. Don't invest in Uber, go meta and buy options on Uber stock. Don't buy Uber stock options, go meta and buy derivatives of options on Uber stock.

"Going meta" means distancing yourself from capitalism – from income derived from profits, from competition, from risk – and cozying up to feudalism.

Capitalists have always hated capitalism. The owners of the dark Satanic mills wanted peasants turned off the land and converted into "free labor" – but they also kidnapped Napoleonic war-orphans and indentured them to ten-year terms of service, which was all you could get out of a child's body before it was ruined for further work:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/26/enochs-hammer/#thats-fronkonsteen

When Varoufakis says we've entered a new feudal age, he doesn't mean that we've abolished capitalism. He means that – for the first time in centuries – when rents go to war against profits – the rents almost always emerge victorious.

Here's the podcast episode:

https://craphound.com/news/2024/04/14/capitalists-hate-capitalism/

Here's a direct link to the MP3 (hosting courtesy of the Internet Archive; they'll host your stuff for free, forever):

https://archive.org/download/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_465/Cory_Doctorow_Podcast_465_-_Capitalists_Hate_Capitalism.mp3

And here's the RSS feed for my podcast:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/doctorow_podcast


Hey look at this (permalink)



A Wayback Machine banner.

This day in history (permalink)

#20yrsago Prison wipes creative-writing class HDDs after student wins PEN award https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2005/feb/15/connecticut-prison-writers-settle-lawsuit-writing-program-reinstated/

#20yrsago EFF waging war on bullshit Internet patents https://web.archive.org/web/20040507111819/https://www.eff.org/Patent/20040419_eff_pr_patent.php

#20yrsago Brazil cracks down on sat-hackers who bounce ham signals off US military satellites https://www.wired.com/2009/04/fleetcom/

#15yrsago Clement Freud’s funniest joke https://britrish.com/2011/08/10/sir-clement-freud-and-the-funniest-joke-ever-told/

#15yrsago RIP, JG Ballard http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8007331.stm

#15yrsago CIA waterboarded individual suspects up to 183 times https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/20/waterboarding-alqaida-khalid-sheikh-mohammed

#10yrsago Profile of Aeropress and Aerobie inventor Alan Adler https://priceonomics.com/the-invention-of-the-aeropress/

#10yrsago UK tax authority caught sneaking in plan to sell Britons’ private financial records https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/18/hmrc-to-sell-taxpayers-data

#5yrsago AOC is going to Kentucky https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-kentucky-visit/index.html

#5yrsago TSA admits that its pornoscanners flag Black women and others with curly hair for humiliating, invasive searches https://www.propublica.org/article/tsa-not-discriminating-against-black-women-but-their-body-scanners-might-be

#5yrsago NYC adopts law targeting the handful of skyscrapers that are spiking the city’s carbon footprint https://www.wired.com/story/new-yorks-aggressive-climate-law-takes-aim-at-skyscrapers/

#5yrsago Read the source code for every classic Infocom text-adventure game! https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/04/you-can-now-download-the-source-code-for-all-infocom-text-adventure-classics/

#5yrsago Telcoms lobbyists have convinced 26 states to ban or restrict municipal broadband https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzmana/report-26-states-now-ban-or-restrict-community-broadband

#5yrsago IPOs have sent Uber and Lyft fares skyrocketing, while driver pay plummets https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/18/uber-lyft-drivers-surge-pricing-wages

#1yrago Iowa's starvation strategy https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/19/whats-wrong-with-iowa/#replicable-cruelty


Upcoming appearances (permalink)

A photo of me onstage, giving a speech, holding a mic.



A screenshot of me at my desk, doing a livecast.

Recent appearances (permalink)



A grid of my books with Will Stahle covers..

Latest books (permalink)



A cardboard book box with the Macmillan logo.

Upcoming books (permalink)

  • Picks and Shovels: a sequel to "Red Team Blues," about the heroic era of the PC, Tor Books, February 2025

  • Unauthorized Bread: a graphic novel adapted from my novella about refugees, toasters and DRM, FirstSecond, 2025



Colophon (permalink)

Today's top sources:

Currently writing:

  • A Little Brother short story about DIY insulin PLANNING

  • Picks and Shovels, a Martin Hench noir thriller about the heroic era of the PC. FORTHCOMING TOR BOOKS JAN 2025

  • Vigilant, Little Brother short story about remote invigilation. FORTHCOMING ON TOR.COM

  • Spill, a Little Brother short story about pipeline protests. FORTHCOMING ON TOR.COM

Latest podcast: Capitalists Hate Capitalism https://craphound.com/news/2024/04/14/capitalists-hate-capitalism/


This work – excluding any serialized fiction – is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license. That means you can use it any way you like, including commercially, provided that you attribute it to me, Cory Doctorow, and include a link to pluralistic.net.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Quotations and images are not included in this license; they are included either under a limitation or exception to copyright, or on the basis of a separate license. Please exercise caution.


How to get Pluralistic:

Blog (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

Pluralistic.net

Newsletter (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://pluralistic.net/plura-list

Mastodon (no ads, tracking, or data-collection):

https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic

Medium (no ads, paywalled):

https://doctorow.medium.com/

Twitter (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://twitter.com/doctorow

Tumblr (mass-scale, unrestricted, third-party surveillance and advertising):

https://mostlysignssomeportents.tumblr.com/tagged/pluralistic

"When life gives you SARS, you make sarsaparilla" -Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
7 minutes ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

The Household Cost of Transportation: Is it Affordable? | Bureau of Transportation Statistics

2 Shares

Transportation cost burden measures the percent of income a household spends on transportation. The cost of transportation, as well as the modes of transportation available and used, impact the total dollars that households spend on transportation. Transportation cost is a measure of transportation affordability. This analysis looks private and public transportation spending as a share of after-tax income, which best represents what a household has available to spend.

In 2022, transportation was the second largest household expenditure behind housing, accounting for 15% of average household spending. The cost burden of transportation fell hardest on households in the lowest fifth by household income. Income quintiles uses household income to divide households into five equal groups. The income range for each quintile is specific to the distribution of household income in each year. In 2022, the lowest income household had an annual before-tax income of less than roughly $25,000.1 In 2022, the household making less than $25,000 (the lowest income quintile) spent 30% of their after-tax income on transportation while those in the highest fifth by household income spent 12% (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Percent of After-tax Income Spent on Transportation by Income Quintile, 2001-2022

NOTE: In 2022, average after-tax income by income quintile: $16,337 (lowest income quintile), $39,300 (2nd income quintile), $63,676 (3rd income quintile), $99,891 (fourth income quintile), and $196,794 (highest income quintile).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics calculations from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, Quintiles of Income Before Taxes table, available at https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables as of September 2023.

For more information and further breakouts of household spending on transportation, see the Bureau of Transportation Statistic’s (BTS) website on transportation cost burden Spending on Transportation by Income Quintile.

Households who own or lease a vehicle spend more of their income on transportation and that trend is most pronounced for low-income households.

With lower vehicle ownership, households in the lowest fifth by household income make fewer trips by personal vehicle. In 2022, those households owned the fewest number of vehicles on average (1.0 vehicle per household compared to 2.6 owned by households with an annual before-tax income over roughly $245,000) and a larger share did not own or lease a vehicle (30% of low-income households did not own or lease a vehicle in 2022 compared to only 3% of households with a before-tax income over roughly $245,000).

Transportation expenditures for households with at least one vehicle are much higher than for households with no vehicles. In 2022, households with income lower than $25,000 who owned at least one vehicle spent 38% of their after-tax income on transportation; while households with the same income who did not own or lease a vehicle spent 5% of their after-tax income on transportation (Figure 2). This trend was seen across household income groups.

Figure 2. Percent of After-tax Income Spent on Transportation Expenditure by Households with No Vehicle vs. Households with One or More Vehicles by Income Quintile

NOTE: No vehicle means households do not own or lease a vehicle.
SOURCE: Calculations by U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey microdata, available at www.bls.gov/cex as of September 2023.

For more information and further breakouts of household spending on transportation and vehicles owned, see the BTS’ website on transportation cost burden, Transportation Spending by Household Income and Vehicles Available.

Rural households spend more on transportation due to longer distances traveled but the difference is not statistically different from urban households.

Differences in costs due to density can be seen through spending differences between urban and rural areas. In all groups by household income except for the lowest and the second highest, households in rural areas have a higher transportation cost burden than households in urban areas (Figure 3). This follows from greater daily vehicle and person miles traveled in rural areas than in urban areas, despite nearly identical daily vehicle and person trips. In other words, rural households spend more due to the longer distances traveled. The differences in the share of after-tax income spent on transportation, are not statistically significant in any of the household income groups but the average vehicle miles traveled is statistically different between rural and urban households for all income groups, which implies the longer distances traveled do not translate into statistically significant larger transportation costs.

Figure 3. Percent of After-Tax Income Spent on Transportation (2022) and Average Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (2017) by Urban vs. Rural

NOTE: Average daily travel is by household. Percent of income spent on transportation is by consumer unit. See https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/bpj8-8amm for household consumer unit definitions.
SOURCES: Spending on transportation: Calculations by U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey microdata, available at www.bls.gov/cex; Daily travel: Calculations by U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics from National Household Travel Survey 2017, available at https://nhts.ornl.gov/downloads

In the lowest income group, households with an earner2 spent 36% of their after-tax income on transportation, whereas households with no earner spent a statistically significant, smaller share (25% of their after-tax income) on transportation. This is due to making fewer trips and traveling fewer miles per day than households with an earner. This trend is seen in all household income groups except for the second lowest group, but it is only statistically significant in the lowest and highest income groups.   

Figure 4. Percent of After-Tax Income Spent on Transportation (2021) and Average Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (2017) by Households with Earners

NOTE: Average daily travel is by household. Percent of income spent on transportation is by consumer unit. See https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/bpj8-8amm for household consumer unit definitions.
SOURCES: Spending on transportation: Calculations by U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey microdata, available at www.bls.gov/cex; Daily travel: Calculations by U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics from National Household Travel Survey 2017, available at https://nhts.ornl.gov/downloads

See Percent of Income Spent on Transportation for daily travel and percent of income spent on transportation for additional household types.

Many household types experienced a decrease in their transportation cost burden from 2019 to 2022; the largest drop was for married families in the lowest household income group with their oldest child between the ages of 6 and 17.

When looking at the data by family type, within the lowest household income group, single person households and married couple households with a child between 6 and 17 years old saw a statistically significant decrease in their after-tax transportation burden from 2019 to 2022 (Figure 5). Married couples with children between 6 and 17 years old saw the greatest drop in that time period falling 87 +/- 34 percentage points.

Figure 5. Share of Income Spent on Transportation in Past Four Years by Family Type in the Lowest Income Quintile

SOURCE: Calculations by U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey microdata, available at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/cex" rel="nofollow">www.bls.gov/cex</a> as of September 2023.

Households headed by a person retired from work have lower transportation cost burdens than households headed by a working person. In all but the second lowest income group, single person households, where the head of household is 65 or older, experienced statistically significant lower after-tax transportation cost burden and traveled less per day compared to other types of households that do not include a person 65 or older. In the lowest income group, only households with no persons 65 years and over experienced a statistically significant change in their after-tax transportation cost burden from 2019 to 2022 (9 percentage point decline) (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Share of Income Spent on Transportation in Past Four Years by Households with 65+ in the Lowest Income Quintile

SOURCE: Calculations by U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics from U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey microdata, available at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/cex" rel="nofollow">www.bls.gov/cex</a> as of September 2023.

For more information on the composition of household income groups by select characteristics, percent of income spent on transportation and average daily travel categories by select characteristics,  and change in share of income spent on transportation by select characteristics, see the Bureau of Transportation Statistic’s website on transportation cost burden page, Transportation Expenditures by Selected Household Characteristics and Income Quintile.

1Less than $25,807.

2BLS defines an earner in their Consumer Expenditure Survey, as a consumer unit, 14 years or older, who reported having worked at least 1 week during the 12 months prior to the interview date.

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
8 minutes ago
reply
Denver, CO
acdha
15 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Printing music with CSS Grid

2 Shares
Too often have I witnessed the improvising musician sweaty-handedly attempting to pinch-zoom an A4 pdf on a tiny mobile screen at the climax of a gig. We need fluid and responsive music rendering for the web!
Read the whole story
LeMadChef
6 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
acdha
6 hours ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Take-Two will reportedly close OlliOlli and Kerbal Space Program studios

1 Share
a skate crew standing in an OlliOlli World level
Image: Roll7/Private Division

Roll7 and Intercept Games to be shuttered amid layoffs

Continue reading…

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
10 hours ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Tesla Should Sell Its Supercharging Business

1 Share

And Elon wept, seeing as he had no more chargers to conquer.

The big news of yesterday, besides the Astros actually winning a game in extra innings, was that Elon Musk unfollowed a bunch of people on X. Just kidding (sort of)! The big news was that Musk fired almost the entire team responsible for running his successful Supercharging business. There are a lot of theories for why he did this, but there’s one I think is kinda fascinating and it makes this move, and a sale of the business, sort of logical.

Less logical and more emotional is Musk’s unfollowing of people, which I do want to talk about a little bit because it fits nicely into a discussion about why talking about Elon Musk is often not fun.

And let’s finish up talking broadly about April’s first sales reports and, oh, the UAW planning to strike against Stellantis. Let the Hump Day Morning Dump begin!

Tesla Fires Supercharging Team And, Fine, It’s A Mediocre Business

Tesla, the EV automaker that creates 10x headlines for every 1x car it builds, is in the news for yet another round of massive layoffs following the company’s relatively poor performance in Q1 of this year.

What’s drawn the most attention is that the layoffs seem to have almost entirely obliterated one team. From the BBC:

Tesla has fired its entire Supercharger division, staff who worked in the team say.

There are over 50,000 Superchargers globally, the company says, making it the world’s largest fast-charging network for electric vehicles.

Boss Elon Musk said the firm would cut one in ten jobs, as it faces strong competition from less expensive rivals.

That seems bad! Here’s some analysis from Tesla-watcher Fred Lambert, who also noted that Tesla is backing out of some leases for new Supercharger sites:

I am extremely perplexed by the move.

If one thing was a clear success at Tesla, it’s the Supercharger network. Even from a talent perspective. No other charging team in the world has been able to do what Tesla did.

Tesla had just won the charging standard battle – making NACS the new standard in North America and all other automakers adopting and jumping onboard with the Supercharger network.

The timing is perplexing from the outside. Tesla has won the charging war and now most major automakers are going to be switching to the Tesla-developed NACS standard. In fact, one would think that Tesla would want to invest more in NACS since more automakers and customers will be using the service.

Here’s an article over at Electrek from late last year about how potentially valuable the Supercharging network might be for the company:

Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives, who has been covering Tesla for a long time, came out with a new note to clients today in which he stated that he believes the Supercharger network will represent 3% to 6% of Tesla’s total revenue or $10 to $20 billion in revenue by 2030.

Ives wrote:

With the introduction of Tesla’s Magic Dock, an adapter that will allow non-Tesla EVs to charge on the NACS standard, this provides the company an incremental opportunity to further expand its charging footprint to the entire EV fleet.

That doesn’t seem to be happening here, so what’s going on? The Reuters report on this same news makes a point that’s worth considering:

More traditional automakers might hang on to a business that promised steady revenue and near-continuous data exchanges with customers, analysts said. But Musk could take a Silicon Valley entrepreneur’s view that charging is a legacy business that could be streamlined or even divested.

“My guess is that now that the industry has adopted the NACS standard, he views Supercharging less as a strategic moat and more as a cost center,” said KC Boyce, a vice president at data analytics firm Escalent.

The Tesla Supercharger network could have significant value if Musk wanted to sell it, analysts said. Rival U.S. charging networks have struggled with reliability problems and do not have the scale or prime locations Tesla has locked in.

Here’s my reaction to that underlined parts:

In business, a “moat” works much like an actual moat in medieval times, keeping invaders (competitors) out, and keeping the people (customers) in. When only Teslas had access to the incredible Supercharging network it was one reason why people felt the need to buy a Tesla and it was hard to argue with!

As has been continually reported, one of the reasons why NACS is becoming the standard is that car companies and customers are super disappointed with non-Tesla charging companies like Electrify America.

But once anyone can get into a Tesla Supercharger the moat is gone, and it just becomes another business. And one with a lot more competition. It’s also a tough business, with Volkswagen spending $2 billion and failing so far.

If there was a huge competitive advantage to be had in charging then carmakers would all have their own charging networks; instead, automakers are teaming up to make joint ventures like Ionna (BMW + Mercedes + Honda + Hyundai/Kia/Genesis).

Tesla has a first-mover advantage in terms of Supercharger locations and technology, but the technology part is now partially gone. Given that Elon Musk is shifting the carmaker away from being a carmaker, why not just sell the Supercharger division? It has a lot of value and that money could be put into AI or other endeavors. What does Musk himself have to say?

That’s not the usual enthusiasm Musk tends to have for his next big idea.

Musk Unfollowers Some Of His Biggest Fans

Muskdefending

I don’t know who originally created the meme, based on The Simpsons, but it’s always true. It’s so hard to talk about Elon Musk and we, as a site, even have a whole section in our style guide about the topic because we don’t want to be knee-jerk, reflexively critical of Musk just because some of us might disagree with his personal beliefs.

The Lisan al Gaib Musk ain’t, but the fervor around Musk is real, and it doesn’t help that Musk also owns the social platform most associated with people exhibiting cult-like behavior.  Apostasy is soon to follow!

For instance:

This is interesting. Sawyer tweets about everything Tesla-related and does so with a very pro-Tesla perspective. While I don’t always agree with Sawyer’s reflexively pro-Tesla view, he’s a good follow because he’s just relentless and notices everything [Ed Note: Agreed; Sawyer Merritt is on the ball. -DT]. Omar, aka Whole Mars Catalog, is a little more out there in his support of Tesla.

So why the unfollow? Sawyer explains:

Musk didn’t say what happened, but unfollowing huge fans for sharing information you don’t want shared seems within Musk’s usual range of behaviors.

I don’t think that Sawyer will take the same heel-turn that long-time Tesla stan Fred Lambert has (he’s lately been more critical of Musk than he was before), especially because…

… he’s still going to be voting to make Elon Musk basically the highest-paid employee of any company at any time in human history.

Hyundai And Kia Have A Down April

2023 Ev6
Photo: KIA

Kia has seen a few months of sales downturns and now Hyundai is joining, though it’s a pretty small number. Year-over-year Hyundai sales dropped 3% in April and Kia was down about 3.6%. What’s going on?

First, as I’ve noted before, when the numbers get down to a couple of percentage points, there’s some seasonality to consider. April has one fewer selling day this year than it did last year, so the overall market is expected to decrease about 2% year-over-year.

That’s still not great, but at least Kia and Hyundai are both seeing EV sales jump. Kia hit a record with 3,623 EVs sold, which includes more than 2,000 of the EV6. At the same time, Hyundai saw EV sales up 26%.

The biggest drop in the group was Genesis, which lost 5.9%

UAW Warning Of Strike At Stellantis Warren Plant

Warren Stellantis Factory Plant
Source: Stellantis

When I said I was worried about Stellantis sticking the landing yesterday, I meant it. The company is making a big jump and all the little things can add up quickly

To wit, The Detroit News has a story today on a potential strike at the Stellantis plant in Warren, Michigan, which makes parts for numerous vehicles in the company. The issue? Safety.

“When it rains, the facility floods because the ceiling is leaking. We have to fight for every single pair of work gloves, while we handle metal and materials to build world class vehicles for Stellantis,” Local 869 president Romaine McKinney III said in a statement. “The list goes on, and we’re putting an end to it. Our union grievance procedure gives us the power to stand up for safety on the job, and we intend to take action if necessary.”

That’s not great. Here’s the response:

“Stellantis is committed to providing a safe and healthy work environment for all employees,” the company said in a statement sent by spokesperson Jodi Tinson. “The company is in discussions with UAW Local 869 to assess open health and safety grievances at the Warren (Michigan) Stamping Plant and aims to resolve this matter without a work stoppage.”

When it rains it pours… and also the plant’s ceiling allegedly leaks.

What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD

The first Gorillaz album is so good. All the songs are great. This album came out the year I went to college and it blew my mind. Plus, who doesn’t love Del The Funky Homosapien as a ghost who can rap?

The Big Question

Who should buy the Supercharger network?

Top graphic images: Tada Images and Doomu, via Stock.Adobe.com

The post Tesla Should Sell Its Supercharging Business appeared first on The Autopian.

Read the whole story
LeMadChef
1 day ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Sit Down

2 Shares


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
I do check to see what became of the PLiF guys every six months or so.


Today's News:
Read the whole story
LeMadChef
1 day ago
reply
Denver, CO
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories