this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
806 points (97.9% liked)

Technology

72988 readers
3075 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The financial fuckery is that they're very heavily subsidized by the CCP. It's not sustainable.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 37 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I'd argue it is.

Just look how Amazon got where it is now: Sell way under market price, till local competition closed shop, then squeeze.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's unsustainable to keep prices lower than costs. The Amazon example didn't have low prices forever.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes, I know. That's why BYD is going to then squeeze the customers once they are locked in.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I think your muddying sustainable and successful. It definitely can be successful, but its not sustainable.

Its also high risk, especially if you can't crank up the prices enough later

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sustainable implies that they can keep doing it forever without changing. Switching later means what they are doing is not sustainable. It might be successful, but its not sustainable.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There's sustainable practices and sustainable businesses. The latter is what others are arguing. Undercutting competition to take over a market is a sustainable practice IF you can hold out long enough. I'd wager the country of China can hold out longer than General Motors.

[–] CameronDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

But the business model has to change in order to survive. The company cannot undercut forever, it actually needs to change in order to survive. The business model of today is not sustainable. They may have a large warchest, they may be able to crush GM, but once they do, or the warchest runs out, the business model must change.

If you want to make the argument that their overall plan with the later change is sustainable, thats fine, but this current phase is not sustainable.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You forgot the part where they raised prices on everything.

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

BYD is already facing scrutiny for running Evergrande like accounting, and a lot of political pressures from other Chinese manufacturers. The risk is that they collapse like Evergrande, and that they drag public debt into it. The CCP might prop them up, so it light be safe. A car is different from a book, because you need lifetime service for it. If they go under, you might lose access to parts.

[–] Gigasser@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It might just be that, since BYD is serving such a large domestic market/population, that allows them to have cheaper cars? Something something, economies of scale. I'm no expert though.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

There is a limit to that effect, though. And most observers agree that the state is subsidizing heavily.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

While they are subsidised, the Chinese are really good at low cost manufacturing. It’s not the cheap labour anymore but factory automation and robotics. They really outclass anyone else.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

the Chinese are really good at low cost manufacturing

They're not "good" at it, they just have no minimum wage and no semblance of annoying things like worker protections or unions to be concerned with.

[–] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

like worker protections or unions

That's just patently false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-China_Federation_of_Trade_Unions

It is the largest trade union in the world with 302 million members in 1,713,000 primary trade union organizations.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 2 points 1 week ago

Like all things in China, this is owned by the government, making it pointless.

[–] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They actually have a problem with workers or the lack of them and they have invested heavily in robotics. They aren’t the China of the 70s and 90s. It’s really something that we need to face up to if we want to compete but our political class isn’t really ready for that sort of reality. Years behind because of smugness.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago

We can't compete with a country that pays their workers $1/hr without doing the same.

[–] Saurok@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

China doesn't have a national minimum wage, but minimum wage is delegated to the local level there and definitely exists in every single province. Just echoing what the other user said, literally everything you said here is easily disprovable. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/minimum-wages-China/

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Beijing has the highest hourly minimum wage (RMB 26.4/US$3.7 per hour)

[–] Saurok@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Glad you learned something!