A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

As politicians in Washington debate what to do about the U.S. auto industry, I am reminded of a comment CIO Paul Pauesick of Kansas Board of Public Utilities made a couple of weeks ago.  Pauesick observes that in 1956 a car cost $2,500, could hold five people, weighed a ton and could go 100 miles per hour.  If automobiles had kept up with where the IT industry has come in the same time period, today a car would cost less than $25, hold 160,000 people, weigh half a pound and travel at 940 miles per hour!

The main difference is that the IT industry has been mostly deregulated from the start and all the developments came from the survival of the fittest, frequently working in their own garages.  The companies that build cars are weighted down with organized labor, with it's socialist tendancies and protections, myriad government regulations, and now Congress is going to appoint a government bureaucrat to make things better....yeah, right. 

More likely next-generation cars will cost $30,000, weigh two or three tons and go 14 miles per...oh, wait, we're already there!

592 Views Comments 3 Comments Comments Add Comment Author BioAuthor Bio
ReportReport This Post as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Rife with logical error. The electronics industry is an entirely unique example whose progress has had nothing to do with presence or absence of labour unions OR regulation. By your logic, my shirt (made in non-union ubregulated China) should cost two cents and cover the state of Maine, my shoes (made in non-union ubregulated India) should cost 3 cents and run at 2000 mph.
# Posted By Len Gould | 12/9/08 3:39 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo As Len alludes to in his post above, people who work sheltered in the regulated utility industry have no clue what it's like to work in the electronics industry. I do, and its history is founded on continuous technological advancement, originally started in California's Silicon Valley. Competition is viewed in this industry as a good thing because it routinely emerges to take advantage of the next breakthrough or cost reduction, and has resulted in unparalleled innovation and industry growth over the last four decades. The ability today to put a computer, cell phone, video camera, and GPS in a single hand-held smart phone device has absolutely nothing to do with the absence of government regulation of the IT industry. The auto industry has not enjoyed the same technological pace of change, aside from primarily the introduction of more electronics in automobiles.

Competition becomes scary when it eats away at our traditionally high-paying manufacturing jobs WITHOUT help from government and WITHOUT the technological advancements to rely upon to reinvent products with. The clothing industry is a great example that Len refers to. The well-known jeans-wear company Levis closed their last plant in Ontario about 6 or 7 years ago, and it made news headlines because it was the last textile sewing plant in North America to shutter. If I were the authors of this blog, I would start praying the government does whatever it can to help our North American auto industry, for the same fate could some day happen to it too.
# Posted By Bob Amorosi | 12/10/08 7:15 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo The IT industry also had to deal with regulations. They always had to comply with the laws of the land like OSHA, EPA and if they were public companies SEC mandates. Many manufacturers also voluntarily adhere to industry best practices standards like ISO because that is how quality brands synonymous with innovation and value are built. To politicize innovation as the result of the absence of government regulation is most disingenuous as is placing the blame for the problems of the US auto industry at the feet of organized labor. Labor is a small fraction of the overall cost of manufacturing a car. Regulation protects workers and communities from the social costs of poor and abusive manufacturing practices. China has a very low cost of labor and production but unfornately they are commiting eco suicide with their production practices. They will soon have to ante-up to deal with this hereto for unrealized cost of production. This presents a great opportunity for America to develop and deliver innovative solutions to help China remediate the ecological damage they are doing to their people and their country.
# Posted By James McCallum | 12/15/08 12:47 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox

Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent EntriesRecent Entries
Recent CommentsRecent Comments
RSS
Energy Central
Power Network


Sponsored Content

Copyright © 1996-2012 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.