[kspacewalk2]

>Mechanics are about to make a killing.

If you're a mechanic and already have plenty of business, I imagine it's a tough call: do you jack up your hourly rates and take advantage of the windfall, at the risk of customer loyalty in the future? This insanity will pass, after all.

[Wistar]

A friend owns a high line/niche used car dealership and his service shop, who has a legendary mechanic, has not increased rates at all but just got more selective about the service work they are doing. Also, effectively no new service customers as they are booked solid for months.

[eru]

So basically they are taking their increased compensation not in the form of more money from customers, but by improving their working conditions.

It's very interesting, because this situation mirrors what economists predict about minimum wages:

Employees take their compensation as a mixed basket of wages and non-monetary perks (like nicer working conditions or opportunities for learning and advancement). Different people like different baskets. Minimum wage laws make some of these baskets illegal.

So orthodox economics predicts that increases in minimum wage leads, amongst other things, to deteriorating working conditions.

Now the situation here is reversed: there's effectively a wage ceiling when service shops are unwilling to raise prices. But they can still raise compensation, by improving working conditions.

Something similar-ish happens with very high marginal tax rates: eg the US used to have crazy high marginal tax rates after WW2 that essentially amounted to salary caps. Cue companies finding all kinds of fringe benefits that were taxed less, like health insurance.

[quintushoratius]

> So orthodox economics predicts that increases in minimum wage leads, amongst other things, to deteriorating working conditions.

I've never heard that take before, but it's a fascinating idea.

Unfortunately, I think the problem we've run into in the U.S. is that minimum wage jobs have already hit rock bottom working conditions. Raising the minimum wage is the only thing left to improve conditions for those stuck in them.

[eru]

> Unfortunately, I think the problem we've run into in the U.S. is that minimum wage jobs have already hit rock bottom working conditions.

Have you seen working conditions in poorer parts of world, or in previous decades when the US was comparatively poorer?

What makes you think 2021 US is 'rock bottom'?

> Raising the minimum wage is the only thing left to improve conditions for those stuck in them.

Well, here again orthodox economics suggest other avenues: decrease taxation on labour, support increased competition between employers for labour (eg by allowing easier access by foreign companies, by making formation of capital easier, etc).

A really big deal in the US would be to 'decriminalize' construction of new housing. That by itself would open up oodles of blue collar job opportunities to compete with existing employers, and it would also decrease what everyone (including workers) has to pay afford a place to stay.

[throwawaylinux]

If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses.

What I think would actually happen is (perhaps some job losses, but) more jobs being pushed underground and laws skirted.

I'm not against minimum wages or increasing it as such, but if the lowest paid workers are in such dire conditions, the fundamental problem seems to be that they have insufficient bargaining power. A huge issue has to be illegal immigrant population that largely competes for low wage positions -- I've heard it's estimated about 15 million but could be as high as double that. Absolutely staggering numbers in either case and being concentrated in the supply of low skill labor it hits the most disadvantaged Americans including minorities hardest unfortunately. I know it's verboten to speak about now, but even champions of labor and the disadvantaged such as Sanders talked about the problem before Trump sent everyone off the rails (and/or the corporatists completed their capture of the left-wing side of politics).

[eru]

> If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses.

No, that's just one outcome. I already described another outcome higher up the comment tree: reduction in non-wage benefits.

In practice, you would probably see some combination of outcomes.

> A huge issue has to be illegal immigrant population that largely competes for low wage positions -- I've heard it's estimated about 15 million but could be as high as double that.

The demand curve for labour seems to be nearly horizontal, ie in the longer run more or less labour supplied (almost) doesn't change its price.

> [...] but even champions of labor and the disadvantaged such as Sanders talked about the problem [...]

Are you suggesting that those people who are desperate enough to become nearly right-less illegal immigrants do not count as labour or as disadvantaged?

(I can very well believe that Sanders doesn't care about them, of course.)

[throwawaylinux]

> No, that's just one outcome. I already described another outcome higher up the comment tree: reduction in non-wage benefits.

I was not replying to you. I asked the posted who claimed that benefits had already hit a floor. I was responding to his supposition.

> Are you suggesting that those people who are desperate enough to become nearly right-less illegal immigrants do not count as labour or as disadvantaged?

No I'm not suggesting that. Seems pretty accusatory and not really in good faith, unless you can explain how on earth I might have been reasonably misinterpreted as suggesting it.

You can advocate for and advance your own interests or the interests of your voters and constituents first without being subject to these stupid witch hunts. Everybody does it, even you. I don't go around accusing you of not caring about poor people or refugees because you have failed to sell all your belongings and donate your wealth to the less fortunate as well as your income except that which you need to barely keep yourself alive.

We are talking about wages in the USA, and massive downward pressure on low skilled labor comes from illegal immigrant workers. If you can't cope with this or debate it rationally then that's your problem not mine.

[BurningFrog]

I took "being selective" to mean focusing on the most profitable jobs.

[Wistar]

In this case, it is a blend of more profitable, less challenging jobs such as brakes and LOF, as well as interesting cases requiring the lead mechanic's renowned diagnostic skills. I have often thought this mechanic should maintain a blog about some of the crazy and perplexing issues he has solved but, he just has no interest in writing them up. Besides, I am not sure he could write them up as some of the leaps in logic he makes are closer to magic than any sort of process.

Also, they have used this era to weed out the pain-in-the-ass customers.

[CoastalCoder]

I noticed a similar dynamic with general contractors / handymen a few years ago.

There was a multi-year period where the demand far exceeded supply, but they didn't seem to adjust their billing rates accordingly.

I never got a clear answer as to why. The one guy I talked to seemed scarred by a very demand-limited market some years prior, so maybe he was fearful of making any changes that might leave him under-employed.

[greedo]

I had the exact opposite occur. The missus wanted a patio installed (pavers or bluestone) and the quote we got from one guy was 10k over what others were bidding. He didn't even submit any drawings/diagrams, just told us the quote. Obviously didn't want the job.

Same thing happened with a flooring guy who could have done $30k worth of work. He kept claiming he'd send us a bid but eventually ghosted us.

Tradespeople can skip doing the hard/less-profitable jobs right now while the market is hot.

[Scoundreller]

As you observed, a shrewd tradesperson never refuses work, they just give a terrible quote.

I had an aunt where the neighbour's son replaced a section of fence and just said to pay what they felt was reasonable and it was difficult for my aunt to come up with a number. Probably wasted a few hours coming up with that number, ugh.

[raisedbyninjas]

It's not just inflated labor pricing. Customers are willing to make more extensive repairs because it's more economical than buying a replacement.

[ska]

Perhaps you just get pickier about the jobs you take.

[randycupertino]

My mechanic does this! He loves to work on classic cars as a passion project and has a bunch of classics in his lot that he's slowly working on, however if you call him now, his voicemail says, "Please note if you are calling to inquire work on a model over 20 years old the waiting list is 5-6 months."

He's a great guy- if anyone is in Bay Area and needs a good honest mechanic for foreign or domestic, shout out to Jack at Tom and Jacks in San Bruno!

[olyjohn]

I tried to get in for an alignment a couple of months ago. I'm used to making an appointment 1 or 2 days out for this sort of thing. All the local shops were booked out over a month. I eventually found a place that had an opening, which ended up being a chain... But I couldn't drive my car for 2 weeks with a bad alignment while I wait for the appointment.

[throwaway0a5e]

That message does nice double duty as a PC way of saying poors need not bother shopping him for a quote to replace something on their '99 Grand Caravan.

[CoastalCoder]

IIUC, you're implying that that mechanic is disdainful of poor customers, and that this just provides convenient political cover.

If so, I'm not sure why you'd assume that. It seems more likely to me that the mechanic is simply choosing his work based on personal interest and perhaps profitability. I don't see why we'd ask anything more than that from him.

[throwaway0a5e]

I'm not assuming. Everyone even remotely close to the industry knows that mechanics don't like the people who want to do the bare minimum amount of work all the time and that fairly strongly correlates to "poors". Of course given the choice a mechanic would rather do an oil change on a '15 4Runner owned by some yuppie he can upsell a cabin air filter to than do a timing set on a '03 Outback for someone who'll decline the water pump that they traditionally try and sell with it.

[bityard]

If you were even remotely close to the industry, you would know full well that the older a car is, the more of a pain in the ass is to repair. It only takes one rusty bolt snapping off to turn a 30 minute job into a 3 hour one. When that happens, the mechanic has to eat those extra hours. They don't get to crawl back to the customer and beg for triple the price. The shop owner certainly isn't going to pony up the difference. It (effectively) comes right out of their paycheck.

I feel that the instant knee-jerk accusation of discrimination against someone you never even met says quite a bit about you.

[greedo]

Eh, it also correlates to "cheapskates." I know a lot of people who make FAANG money who do the bare minimum in home/auto repairs. Just cheap SOBs.

[lotsofpulp]

I would have thought 4runners were disproportionately bought by people who want to fix the car themselves.

[pbourke]

> mechanics don't like the people who want to do the bare minimum amount of work all the time

Does anyone?

> oil change on a '15 4Runner owned by some yuppie

Yuppies don’t drive 7 year old cars

[tonyedgecombe]

Sadly life gets a lot easier when you exclude the poorest customers. I don't blame anybody for doing that.

[NDizzle]

Will the insanity pass, though? There's talk of putting cameras in all cars starting in 2026 to prevent... drunk driving[1]?! What's next?

I can't be alone in never buying a car that has this feature.

[1] https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-11-09/congre...

[noduerme]

I still won't even buy a car with GPS. Seems I'm in a vanishing minority. It won't pass, because people born after 1990 have spent their adult lives in a world with surveillance machines in their pockets at all times. Their cars are just big phones. By 2040 you probably won't even be allowed to drive your own vehicle.

[OnlineGladiator]

GPS is a one-way communication. It's really no different from radio in that regard (a signal sent from far away and you have an antenna to read the signal). Unless there's also a cellular modem in your car (which pretty much every modern car has today so I'm not pretending this is unusual) it's impossible for others to monitor your location. You can simply disable the cellular modem and enjoy using GPS without anyone else knowing where you are.

Also, those cellular modems in cars tend to use older technology (this is fairly standard for the auto industry in general since there is such a long regulatory approval process for anything). My 2018 model year car will no longer be able to communicate remotely in January 2022 because the cellular network is being deprecated.

[noduerme]

I understand this. To be clear, I'm willing to use GPS. I'm willing to carry a cellphone. I'm even willing to use those things in conjunction when I choose to put a battery in and turn mobile data on and location on. If there were a car with a built-in GPS that didn't have cellular reception, I would get it. (I used to use a TomTom).

But I won't buy a car where those things are integrated and can't be turned off. Several people here seem to assume that I don't understand that almost all cars from the past decade have this capability.

It's one reason I drive a car from 1980, with basically no electronics whatsoever. (Other reasons being: it's more fun, it's simple to repair, and it will still run after an EMP).

[OnlineGladiator]

I'm saying it's really easy to just kill the cellular modem in pretty much any car. Just short it with solder if you want to. Now you can enjoy almost any car with none of the privacy concerns.

If you prefer older cars that's fine, but there's an easy workaround if the issue really is whether or not there's a cellular modem. I've done this before on multiple vehicles and it won't void the warranty for anything other than parts you want to disable already.

[noduerme]

Hm. Interesting. The newer navigation systems are based on Android I think - right?

My GF has a 2008 Lexus with a GPS/nav that is definitely not Android. All the maps are onboard on a drive. She actually can't update her maps anymore because the physical ROMs or whatever stopped being produced a few years ago. I'm assuming that newer cars just download their maps from (somewhere? Is this connectivity part of what's sold as a "navigation package"?)

There are other reasons I'm not a fan of newer cars (auto-braking, too much fly-by-wire stability/antilock/nonsense pushing your pedals when you don't want them pushed, and "hill hold"). But disabling the tracking stuff would make it more palatable.

Ironically, my radar detector knows exactly where I am and communicates with a network all the time when it's plugged in. But that's for my own joy =D

[emaginniss]

Right, but they can access your car later and see all the places you've been.

[lotsofpulp]

Seems like a futile effort to avoid cars with GPS if you carry a device around that is connected to a mobile network. Is there anyone that does not carry around a dumb phone, if not a smartphone?

[zeckalpha]

Yes. I know people who have dumb phones but they only put the batteries in when they need to make a call.

[rhizome]

Presumably you are the only person with the password to your phone unless you use biometrics, with which you can be forced to unlock it. The car's black box, on the other hand, can be dumped by warrant (at the most).

[ranger_danger]

You could unplug the antenna or replace the head unit.

[hyperman1]

To be honest, not being allowed to drive your own vehicle is probably a good thing.

See e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index.... From the first few paragraphs:

  Road traffic crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States for people aged 1–54     

  More than half of those killed are pedestrians, motorcyclists, or cyclists.

Drivers risk other people's lives, hence, other people have a right to demand safety from drivers' actions. Supposing computers do get better than humans in the future, why not just stop humans from doing this dangerous activity?

If someone wants to do some old school driving in 2040, go have fun on a private racetrack or whatever. You can even ignore speed limits.

[zizee]

It does wrestle a lot of control from the individual though. It's not hard to imagine possible abuses of power. Tracking everyone's movements is just the start. What if some government decided to deny service to someone? Or not let certain groups travel to certain places. Imagine opportunities for havoc due to hacking

I'd still like driverless cars, but privacy and freedom of movement rights protections need to be thought about.

[hyperman1]

There are 2 separate aspects here: Driverless, and governement controlled. A driverless car might be a car like today's, except with a computer on board. Governement doesn't connect with your car at an individual level, even if they might adapt the road code a bit to make it more easy on the cars.

The problems you mention are real, but a driverless car doesn't change much. Havoc due to hacking is already possible today, with OTA software updates for cars. Tracking is also possible with cell phones. Driverless car software could be like GPS updates today: Some corporation provides a yearly update and that's it.

[noduerme]

>> Havoc due to hacking is already possible today

But it's still legal to buy and drive a car from the 80s that can't be hacked.

Looking ahead, my concern is that we'll begin to see laws that restrict human controlled vehicles from autonomous lanes and eventually whole roads. This would take a lot of burden off the manufacturers. If cars can use a common protocol to communicate across brands, you don't even need traffic lights or turn signals; you don't even need to stop at intersections. Cars can just slow down or speed up by a tiny bit in coordination with other traffic. At that point it will be impossible for a human to drive at all.

It's impossible to separate increasing vehicle autonomy from increased government control. Once there's an ability to make any car pull over to the side remotely, knowing who is in it and where it's going, all freedom of movement and therefore all human autonomy exists completely at the whim of government. That level of control will be abused sooner rather than later, if not in America then certainly in authoritarian states.

Full self driving is an authoritarian trap.

[elzbardico]

You don't need remote control for that. Just a etanol sensor, local processing, car computer refuses to start.

[noduerme]

>> If someone wants to do some old school driving in 2040, go have fun on a private racetrack or whatever

This reminds me of how only rich people could afford to fly places in the 1940s; then the upper-middle class could afford airline vacations in the 60s-80s; then by the 2000s, it was available to everyone so everyone had to be treated like scum/cattle, and once again if you wanted to take a nice vacation you had to be rich and buy first class tickets, or rent a jet.

So your ideal vision for 2040 is that everyone is herded everywhere and no one gets to experience even a fleeting sense of freedom on the road, except the extremely rich who can afford cars that aren't road-legal and can only go to racetracks? Or maybe large private land holdings?

Because currently, we still live in a society where the average person can experience a modicum of freedom - mobility, autonomy, and privacy - by getting in their car and driving it without help from a computer or monitoring from the government. I think that's worth preserving. A generation that grows up without ever feeling that freedom will be way too easy to control.

Maybe driving your own car will seem anachronistic like, say, writing in full sentences without emojis. But if you think about what we'd be losing, as a personal experience of having the privilege to take yourself anywhere on your own recognizance, it seems like a massive step backwards to deprive humans of that. And it sounds like imprisonment.

[vagrantJin]

I certainly don't buy that your car is freedom trope sold to our parents to buy the latest car back in the sixties. Most cars are dailies and only ever drive between home, work, store ad nauseum. So the rosy tinted idea that cars are freedom just means more traffic, complaining about fuel, complaining about tires, complaining about insurance, and the forgetful fact that humans are driving around a metal and plastic box with several dozen litres of flammable fuel at 100km/h - while listening to shitty breakfast show radio.

No thanks.

I'd rather we do away with the car is freedom trope. Most cars arent even useful, just signals to your nieghbours and friends that you are, in fact, balling. No thanks. Uber had the right idea. Don't own it, go where you want and pay up. Should be cheap when it's automated. Don't like that then take public transport...and if you can - just walk. What happened to just walking?

Right...you can't because our spaces are designed for car travel, not people. Do you see my point?

[NDizzle]

Cars were my freedom. People live different lives, you know?

Did you drive 100+ miles, one way, for epic parties when you were in high school? I did. That's how rural Arkansas works.

My first tech job required me to go 130 miles one way for months before I could afford my own place and move closer. How would I have done that with your rules?!

[notreallyserio]

I have the opposite view: driving doesn't feel like freedom to me. It feels like a necessary evil forced upon my by prior generations. Using a self driving car to get around sounds a lot more free to me as I'd be free to do something other than stare at the road and listen to podcasts.

[postsantum]

I am sure it would work great with the upcoming quarantine of 2038. Fellow citizen, for your own good, your car has been geofenced to your local grocery shop

[noduerme]

This is my cubicle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Projecting 6 different insta feeds on the walls and floor and ceiling will be so freeing for our kids. They can save up for a Meta subscription with GTA GFE. Just like driving in a real car with a real girlfriend, but better.

[Scoundreller]

bicycles (wo)man!

[postsantum]

With the current average BMI my point still stands

[RNCTX]

You're never going to see Elon Musk assume liability for one of his exploding deathtraps. It will always come with the disclaimer that you're responsible for driving it.

Autopiloted cars are just investor marketing.

[oceanplexian]

This brings up an interesting point which is why I recently bought a used car. The late 90s, 00s are probably the last road-legal vehicles that won’t spy on you. I wouldn’t put it past lawmakers to make phoning home mandatory like they did with backup cameras. I’m guessing this will also cause prices to skyrocket since there is a sizable minority of people like us who will refuse to buy a car that’s plugged into the Internet.

[mark-r]

Worse yet, they'll make you pay for a subscription to the spy service! I've had my new car for exactly a year now, and I got multiple warnings that they were going to turn off the connection that they use for roadside assistance etc. unless I ponied up $8 a month.

[KennyBlanken]

I have news for you: not getting a car with navigation doesn't mean squat.

Any vehicle sold with telematics available not only has GPS, but that telematics system is feeding the manufacturer data from the vehicle, including your location.

This happens whether you're subscribing to the telematics service or not. It's always on. Some vehicles do it multiple times an hour or more.

[ranger_danger]

Just unplug the GPS/cell antennas if you're that paranoid? Newer cars will not be made without them anyway because they are actually safety features.

[noduerme]

Being spied on is always a safety feature. That's why North Korea is the safest country in the world. No one ever dies there. Not a single case of covid!

[ranger_danger]

Believe it or not, trying to tell people they don't want someone else just a voice command or push button away in the case of an accident, is actually a hard sell. It might be seen as a privacy invasion to some (whether it's used as such in practice is another story), but to others it might actually save their life.

[muffinman26]

For me it's the touchscreen tablet-like control consoles. The Tesla controls are essentially a laptop in the middle of the car. Given what we know about texting while driving, it is absolutely ludicrous to me that those things are even legal, let alone common.

[fshbbdssbbgdd]

One compromise is jacking up rates for new customers only.

[vkou]

Keep rates steady for old customers, raise rates for new ones.

[barrenko]

Yes it will, just like real estate prices.

Joke.

[eru]

Could you please explain the joke?