You should also factor in lax human rights enforcement in China (which acts like a subsidy essentially in effect and is not factored in these calculations):

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/10/human-rights-...

BYD is at the bottom of the list (worst for human rights). Tesla is second at the top (better for human rights).

▲

defrost 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> You should also factor in ...

Thank you for the suggestion.

I should point out that is not my work, and dates from 2023. If you follow the link to the work quoted you might be able to contact the authors and pass them your thoughts.

▲

claytongulick 11 hours ago | parent [-]

You are citing a source to tell a story about subsidies.

Lack of worker safety standards can be considered to be a government subsidy when doing a comparison.

Therefore, it's reasonable to point out that it should be factored in.

	▲	defrost 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Absolutely. Even better, suggest that the authors factor that in to their presentation. Now, I'm not going to tell you what _you_ should do, nor would I even tell you what I think you should do. I'll leave that to @thesmtsolver2 and others who enjoy that type of thing.

▲

maxglute 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a retarded list of self reported paper commitments, not actual practice, i.e. no actual supply chain assessment was done, not that you can trust a propaganda shitrag like amnesty. Tesla simply "promises" in their PR to be better for human rights. Hint 50%+ of Tesla exports come from Tesla Shanghai which uses same supply raw material supply chain as rest of PRC auto, functionally they're the same.

Meanwhile how do you factoring in PRC manufacturing is simply more modern with more labour saving automation, i.e. they simply have less people to "abuse". PRC simply be peak human rights by eliminating the most humans from process.