Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlotOfReading | Hacker News Reader

These laws come from a very different time. The original theory was that:

1) it's an easy way to do antitrust without breaking up the economics of scale in the manufacturing side

2) dealers would keep money locally / respond to local consumer demand better and

3) dealers were smaller entities that would negotiate better with consumers because they wouldn't have a monopoly on local supply of a manufacturer's vehicles

None of these are regularly true today (and it's questionable how true they were at the time). There are far more viable automakers than when this regulation was originally passed and dealers don't offer better pricing or try to meet local demand more than manufacturers. Dealerships also typically aren't small local businesses anymore, but instead large corporate chains whose owners may live just as far away as the OEM.

View on HN

They would also do maintenance. Cars used to require an absolutely huge amount of regular maintenance and having someone local to do it was a net win.

Don't know what it's like in the US, but here in Australia we have a huge industry of independent mechanics - on the scale of maybe 10-20 independents for every one dealer.

Also should mention that, by law, they can perform the regular servicing required by the manufacturer’s warranty.

We have that in the US, but the quality can vary from exploitative and/or incompetent to better than the dealer. They especially like to take advantage of women and visible minorities.

There's that stereotype in Australia (more women than visible minorities, good luck scamming an Indian dad), but I'm not sure how true that is. Every mechanic we've been to has been honest and respectful with my wife, and generally half the price of the dealer.

I've seen enough accounts and had enough myself to know it's more than a myth. They'll "huh, looks like you're right" and do the needed cheaper repair if you know enough to call them on it, but you have to know enough to call them on it.

>Cars used to require an absolutely huge amount of regular maintenance

To a degree ICEs still do. Check the recommended service intervals in the user manual on a modern car. You basically need to visit the shop at least every year or sometimes every 6 months.

Obviously the sky won't fall if you don't do it as often as they recommend and the car will run just fine, but then you're voiding your warranty in case something breaks.

Thats a far cry from when they used to check your oil every fill up (because your car was definitely consuming it). You had you had to grease mechanical joints on the body and suspension every 1k miles - now those are all sealed.

Old cars needed a ton of work frequently.

Check out this 1950s car owners manual: https://chevy.oldcarmanualproject.com/chevyowner/50om22.htm

Fair enough, I'm only used to cars from the 80's and younger.

Although when considering the original theory, it should be noted that the US's global manufacturing leadership in cars collapsed. It moved form the States in 1950 to Asia - first Japan, then China.

If the US consumers having cheap cars was a goal (which, implicitly, is what those 3 dot points support) it would seem that US policies were ineffective. If anything, car prices depend on labour costs and the dealership structure is a sideshow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com