The American Car Industry Can't Go On Like This
This article was featured in the One Story to Read Today newsletter. Sign up for it here.
Last year, Ford CEO Jim Farley commuted in a car that wasn't made by his own company. In an effort to scope out the competition, Farley spent six months driving around in a Xiaomi SU7. The Chinese-made electric sedan is one of the world's most impressive cars: It can accelerate faster than many Porsches, has a giant touch screen that lets you turn off the lights at your house, and comes with a built-in AI assistant—all for roughly $30,000 in China. 'It's fantastic,' Farley said about the Xiaomi SU7 on a podcast last fall. 'I don't want to give it up.'
Farley has openly feared what might happen to Ford if more Americans can get behind the wheel of the Xiaomi SU7. Ford was able to import a Xiaomi from Shanghai for testing purposes, but for now, regular Americans cannot buy the SU7 or another one of the many affordable and highly advanced EVs made in China. Stiff tariffs and restrictions on Chinese technology have kept them out of the U.S. If things changed, Ford—along with all other automakers in the U.S.—would be in serious danger. Chinese EVs can be so cheap and high tech that they risk outcompeting all cars, not just electric ones. In the rest of the world, traditional automakers are already struggling as Chinese cars hit the market. In Europe, Chinese brands now have roughly as much share of the market as Mercedes-Benz. 'We are in a global competition with China,' Farley said earlier this year. 'And if we lose this, we do not have a future at Ford.'
It might sound a bit overblown. American auto executives delivered similar warnings about Japan in the '80s—and Ford's still standing today. But this week, Ford signaled, in unusually clear terms for the auto industry, that it sees China as an existential threat. At a Ford factory in Louisville, Kentucky, Farley announced a series of drastic countermeasures to begin making cheaper electric cars that can compete with Xiaomi and other Chinese companies. The changes are so fundamental that Ford is retooling the assembly line itself—the very thing Henry Ford used to get the world motoring a century ago.
Ford's answer to China starts with—what else?—a pickup truck. In 2027, the Louisville plant will produce a new electric truck starting at $30,000. By today's standards, this would be one of the cheapest new EVs you can buy in America. It will cost far less than Ford's current electric truck, the F-150 Lightning Pro, which starts at about $55,000. Plenty of Americans might get excited about a decent, affordable electric truck. But what's more important than the price is how it'll be made.
Ford's other EVs, including the F-150 Lightning and electric Mustang Mach-E, were heavily adapted from existing gas-powered models. Those vehicles are built by cobbling together a hodgepodge of individual components that evolved independently of one another over time, like a house that's been slowly renovated several times across decades. Retrofitting a design for a big, expensive EV battery comes with all kinds of compromises, including high costs. Ford realized early on that it was spending billions of dollars on wiring, among other things that its competitors such as Tesla didn't need to deal with, because their electric cars are purpose-built from the ground up. No wonder, then, that Ford's electric division has racked up $2 billion in losses in just the first half of this year alone.
Ford's approach with its new truck is more like bulldozing the entire house and starting from scratch. A small team full of former Tesla and Apple engineers, working out of California, designed the process. The new truck will be made with 20 percent fewer parts than a traditional gas vehicle, Ford has said, and half as many cooling hoses. The company has 'no illusion that we have one whiz-bang idea' to keep costs down, says Alan Clarke, Ford's head of advanced EV development, who spent a dozen years as a top Tesla engineer. 'We've had to do hundreds of things to be able to meet this price point.'
For Ford, a single $30,000 electric truck is hardly a sufficient answer to China's inexpensive EVs. The bigger development might be the factory itself. Besides adding robots, the company's assembly line hadn't changed much since the days of Henry Ford. At the revamped Louisville plant, Ford is using what it's calling an 'assembly tree' system: three 'branches' where the vehicle's battery and major body parts converge to make the car with fewer parts. By doing so, Ford says, it'll crank out trucks up to 15 percent more quickly than the plant's current vehicles. It's one factory and one vehicle for now, Clarke says, but if successful, this approach could spread throughout Ford. 'It is certainly the future of EV-making, one way or another,' he told me.
In some ways, Ford is simply catching up to what China has already been doing. 'Broadly, what Ford announced this week is already being done—just not by them,' Tu Le, the founder of Sino Auto Insights, a research firm, told me. With EVs, the battery became the most expensive part of a vehicle—so carmakers, starting with Tesla, began to rethink how body parts and other components were made and come together, in order to cut costs. China ran with many of those ideas.
Ford's plans will be challenging to pull off. China has immense government subsidies, a huge pool of engineering talent, the world's best battery technology, and ultra-low labor costs. (According to Reuters, BYD, the Chinese EV giant, recently advertised a factory position that pays roughly $850 a month.) Meanwhile, Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act just gutted many EV subsidies and incentives that would have helped America catch up to China.
Legacy automakers have made big promises before about a forthcoming EV revolution, only to retreat, retrench, and rethink when things got hard, or when they got a pass from environmental regulators. Last year, Ford canceled a large electric SUV, and its current EV lineup is getting old while competitors such as General Motors have been rolling out new models all of the time. Ford's new truck is at least two years away, and China isn't waiting around. Chinese EVs are surging in developing countries like Nepal, Sri Lanka, Djibouti, and Ethiopia—where more limited gasoline infrastructure and lower EV-maintenance costs make them especially appealing. That competition is bad news for a company like Ford, which builds and sells cars all over the world. Ford's new car is designed to be exported as well, though the automaker won't say where yet.
A lot is riding on a $30,000 truck. As Chinese EVs take over the world, keeping them out of the U.S. becomes a tougher and tougher sell. It's not hard to imagine a company like BYD eventually getting the go-ahead to build a factory in the U.S. 'I see a Chinese EV being built in the U.S. within Trump's current term,' Le predicted. Those cars won't be as dirt cheap as they are in China when built with American labor, but they would still be considerably more advanced.
Henry Ford's company once reinvented how cars were built. The most alarming possibility for Ford is that it could do so all over again—and somehow, even that might not be enough.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Solve the daily Crossword

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


TechCrunch
a few seconds ago
- TechCrunch
Duolingo CEO says controversial AI memo was misunderstood
In Brief While Duolingo CEO Luis von Ahn was loudly criticized this year after declaring that Duolingo would become an 'AI-first company,' he suggested in a new interview the real issue was that he 'did not give enough context.' 'Internally, this was not controversial,' von Ahn told The New York Times. 'Externally, as a publicly traded company some people assume that it's just for profit. Or that we're trying to lay off humans. And that was not the intent at all.' On the contrary, von Ahn said the company has 'never laid off any full-time employees' and has no intention of doing so. And while he didn't deny that Duolingo had cut its contractor workforce, he suggested that 'from the beginning … our contractor workforce has gone up and down depending on needs.' Despite the criticism (which does not seem to have made a big impact on Duolingo's bottom line), von Ahn still sounds extremely bullish about A.I.'s potential, with Duolingo team members taking every Friday morning to experiment with the technology. 'It's a bad acronym, f-r-A-I-days,' he said. 'I don't know how to pronounce it.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Thinking of Buying Tesla Stock? Here Are 2 Red Flags to Watch
Key Points Tesla's heavy reliance on Elon Musk adds significant leadership risk. Increasing competition from established automakers and Chinese EV makers is pressuring Tesla's dominance. Investors need to be comfortable with Tesla's high valuation. These 10 stocks could mint the next wave of millionaires › Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) has long been the front runner in the electric vehicle (EV) revolution in the U.S. Its innovation, brand strength, and rapid growth have made it a favorite among investors. Yet, despite its impressive track record, there are two big risks that investors should carefully consider before buying Tesla stock today. 1. The Elon Musk factor Elon Musk's leadership is often cited as Tesla's greatest strength -- and, paradoxically, one of its most significant vulnerabilities. Musk's vision and hands-on approach have driven Tesla's technological breakthroughs and ambitious expansion. However, this heavy reliance on a single individual introduces what investors refer to as "key man risk." If Musk were to step back from daily operations or shift his focus to other projects, Tesla might face challenges in maintaining its momentum. Though Tesla's management team has grown stronger, few executives command the same vision, drive, and public attention as Musk. Recently, Musk's increasing involvement in political activities has raised concerns about potential distractions or reputational risks for Tesla. While the company has remained operationally strong, these developments underscore the uncertainty around its future leadership continuity. While Tesla's success lies not only with Musk but also with his team, which has executed well on his vision -- no one can build a trillion-dollar company alone -- there is still no clear successor (or a viable management team) . The silver lining here is that the Tesla board has become more serious about finding one in recent months, largely due to the CEO's active involvement in politics. For investors, this means that Tesla's fortunes remain closely tied to Musk's presence and decisions -- a factor that adds a layer of risk to the investment. 2. Intensifying competition Tesla might have been an early mover in the EV industry, but its dominance is no longer guaranteed. The industry landscape is rapidly evolving, with legacy automakers and new entrants accelerating their electric ambitions. Companies like Ford and General Motors are aggressively expanding their EV lineups. For instance, Ford plans to introduce a $30,000 midsize truck by 2027. That price is significantly lower than the average for an EV, and Ford is investing $5 billion in its EV production to make it happen. GM, on the other hand, is working hard on next-generation battery technologies to improve range, charging performance, and cost. Meanwhile, Chinese manufacturers such as BYD are growing their international footprints, particularly in Europe, where Tesla experienced a nearly 27% sales declinein July 2025. BYD's battery technology, government support, and competitive pricing make it a formidable challenger. In addition, a host of EV start-ups are innovating in battery tech, autonomous driving, and new business models, further intensifying competition. While Tesla is not sitting still -- it is working on becoming the lowest-cost producer by cutting prices to grow sales volume and achieve economies of scale -- there is no guarantee that it can maintain its market share over time. In short, it's no longer the only player in town. What does this mean for investors? Tesla's story remains compelling: It's a pioneer with a powerful brand, innovative products, and potential optionality with some of its long shot bets (robotaxi, humanoid robots, etc). But the key man risk surrounding Musk and the escalating competitive landscape are real concerns that investors can't ignore. If Tesla continues to innovate more rapidly than its rivals, the company could sustain its growth trajectory. However, any leadership changes or slips in market position could hurt the business and its share price. While these two risks don't necessarily call for the sale of the stock, they do mean that investors should think carefully before buying the stock today. Tesla stock trades at a significant premium valuation to other carmakers. For perspective, Tesla has a price-to-sales (P/S) ratio of 12.9, compared to GM's 0.3. Unless you're comfortable with the risks and the high valuation, buying the stock today may not be a prudent decision. Don't miss this second chance at a potentially lucrative opportunity Ever feel like you missed the boat in buying the most successful stocks? Then you'll want to hear this. On rare occasions, our expert team of analysts issues a 'Double Down' stock recommendation for companies that they think are about to pop. If you're worried you've already missed your chance to invest, now is the best time to buy before it's too late. And the numbers speak for themselves: Nvidia: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2009, you'd have $467,985!* Apple: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2008, you'd have $44,015!* Netflix: if you invested $1,000 when we doubled down in 2004, you'd have $668,155!* Right now, we're issuing 'Double Down' alerts for three incredible companies, available when you join , and there may not be another chance like this anytime soon.*Stock Advisor returns as of August 13, 2025 Lawrence Nga has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool recommends BYD Company and General Motors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Thinking of Buying Tesla Stock? Here Are 2 Red Flags to Watch was originally published by The Motley Fool
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
This CEO laid off nearly 80% of his staff because they refused to adopt AI fast enough. 2 years later, he says he'd do it again
Eric Vaughan, CEO of enterprise-software powerhouse IgniteTech, is unwavering as he reflects on the most radical decision of his decades-long career. In early 2023, convinced that generative AI was an 'existential' transformation, Vaughan looked at his team and saw a workforce not fully on board. His ultimate response: He ripped the company down to the studs, replacing nearly 80% of staff within a year, according to headcount figures reviewed by Fortune. Over the course of 2023 and into the first quarter of 2024, Vaughan said IgniteTech replaced hundreds of employees, declining to disclose a specific number. 'That was not our goal,' he told Fortune. 'It was extremely difficult … But changing minds was harder than adding skills.' It was, by any measure, a brutal reckoning—but Vaughan insists it was necessary, and says he'd do it again. For Vaughan, the writing on the wall was clear and dramatic. 'In early 2023, we saw the light,' he told Fortune in an interview, adding that he believed every tech company was facing a crucial inflection point around adoption of artificial intelligence. 'Now I've certainly morphed to believe that this is every company, and I mean that literally every company, is facing an existential threat by this transformation.' Where others saw promise, Vaughan saw urgency—believing that failing to get ahead on AI could doom even the most robust business. He called an all-hands meeting with his global, remote team. Gone were the comfortable routines and quarterly goals. Instead, his message was direct: Everything would now revolve around AI. 'We're going to give a gift to each of you. And that gift is tremendous investment of time, tools, education, projects … to give you a new skill,' he explained. The company began reimbursing for AI tools and prompt engineering classes, and even brought in outside experts to evangelize. 'Every single Monday was called 'AI Monday,'' Vaughan said, with his mandate for staff that they could only work on AI. 'You couldn't have customer calls, you couldn't work on budgets, you had to only work on AI projects.' He said this happened across the board, not just for tech workers, but also for sales, marketing, and everybody at IgniteTech. 'That culture needed to be built. That was… that was the key.' This was a major investment, he added: 20% of payroll was dedicated to a mass-learning initiative, and it failed because of mass resistance, even sabotage. Belief, Vaughan discovered, is a hard thing to manufacture. 'In those early days, we did get resistance, we got flat-out, 'Yeah, I'm not going to do this' resistance. And so we said goodbye to those people.' The pushback: Why didn't they get on board? Vaughan was surprised to find it was often the technical staff, not marketing or sales, who dug in their heels. They were the 'most resistant,' he said, voicing various concerns about what the AI couldn't do, rather than focusing on what it could. The marketing and salespeople were enthused by the possibilities of working with these new tools, he added. This friction is borne out by broader research. According to the 2025 enterprise AI adoption report by WRITER, an AI platform that specifically helps enterprise clients with AI integration, one in three workers say they've 'actively sabotaged' their company's AI rollout—a number that jumps to 41% of millennial and Gen Z employees. This can take the form of refusing to use AI tools, intentionally generating low-quality outputs, or avoiding training altogether. Many act out due to fears that AI will replace their jobs, while others are frustrated by lackluster AI tools or unclear strategy from leadership. WRITER's Chief Strategy Officer Kevin Chung told Fortune the 'big eye-opening thing' from this survey was the human element of AI resistance. 'This sabotage isn't because they're afraid of the technology … It's more like there's so much pressure to get it right, and then when you're handed something that doesn't work, you get frustrated.' He added that WRITER's research shows that workers often don't trust where their organizations are headed. 'When you're handed something that isn't quite what you want, it's very frustrating, so the sabotage kicks in, because then people are like, 'Okay, I'm going to run my own thing. I'm going to go figure it out myself.'' You definitely don't want this kind of 'shadow IT' in an organization, he added. Vaughan says he didn't want to force anyone. 'You can't compel people to change, especially if they don't believe.' He added that belief was really the thing he needed to recruit for. Company leadership ultimately realized they'd have to launch a massive recruiting effort for what became known as 'AI Innovation Specialists.' This applied across the board, to sales, finance. marketing, everywhere. Vaughan said this time was 'really difficult' as things inside the company were 'upside down … We didn't really quite know where we were or who we were yet.' A couple key hires helped, starting with the person who became IgniteTech's chief AI officer, Thibault Bridel-Bertomeu. That led to a full reorganization of the company that Vaughan called 'somewhat unusual.' Essentially, every division now reports into the AI organization, regardless of domain. This centralization, Vaughan says, prevented duplication of efforts and maximized knowledge sharing—a common struggle in AI adoption, where WRITER's survey shows 71% of the C-suite at other companies say AI applications are being created in silos and nearly half report their employees left to 'figure generative AI out on their own.' No pain, no gain? In exchange for this difficult transformation, IgniteTech reaped extraordinary results. By the end of 2024, the company had launched two patent-pending AI solutions, including a platform for AI-based email automation (Eloquens AI), with a radically rebuilt team. Financially, IgniteTech remained strong. Vaughan disclosed that the company, which he said is in the nine-figure revenue range, finished 2024 at 'near 75% EBITDA'—all while completing a major acquisition, Khoros. 'You multiply people … give people the ability to multiply themselves and do things at a pace,' he said, touting the company's ability to build new customer-ready products in as little as four days—an unthinkable timeline in the old regime. What does Vaughan's story say for others? On one level, it's a case study in the pain and payoff of radical change management. But his ruthless approach arguably addresses many challenges identified in the WRITER survey: lack of strategy and investment, misalignment between IT and business, and the failure to engage champions who can unlock AI's benefits. The 'boy who cried wolf' problem To be sure, IgniteTech is far from alone in wrestling with these challenges. Joshua Wöhle is the CEO of Mindstone, a firm similar to WRITER that provides AI upskilling services to workforces, training hundreds of employees monthly at companies including Lufthansa, Hyatt, and NBA teams. He recently discussed the two approaches described by Vaughan—upskilling and mass replacement—in an appearance on BBC Business Today. Wöhle contrasted the recent examples of Ikea and Klarna, arguing the former's example shows why it's better to 'reskill' existing employees. Klarna, a Swedish buy-now pay-later firm, drew considerable publicity for a decision to reduce members of its customer support staff in a pivot to AI, only to rehire for the same roles. 'We're near the point where [AI is] more intelligent than most people doing knowledge work. But that's precisely why augmentation beats automation,' Wöhle wrote on LinkedIn. A representative for Klarna told Fortune the company did not lay off employees, but has instead adopted several approaches to its customer service, which is managed by outsourced customer-service providers who are paid according to the volume of work required. The launch of an AI customer-service assistant reduced the workload by the equivalent of 700 full-time agents—from roughly 3,000 to 2,300—and the third-party providers redeployed those 700 workers to other clients, according to Klarna. Now that the AI customer service agent is 'handling more complex queries than when we launched,' Klarna says, that number has fallen to 2,200. Klarna says its contractor has rehired just two people in a pilot program designed to combine highly trained human support staff with AI to deliver outstanding customer service. In an interview with Fortune, Wöhle said one client of his has been very blunt with his workers, ordering them to dedicate all Fridays to AI retraining, and if they didn't report back on any of their work, they were invited to leave the company. He said it can be 'kinder' to dismiss workers who are resistant to AI: 'The pace of change is so fast that it's the kinder thing to force people through it.' He added that he used to think that if he got all workers to really love learning, then that could help Mindstone make a real difference, but he discovered after training literally thousands of people that 'most people hate learning. They'd avoid it if they can.' Wöhle attributed much of the AI resistance in the workforce to a 'boy who cried wolf' problem from the tech sector, citing NFTs and blockchain as technologies that were billed as revolutionary but 'didn't have the real effect' that tech leaders promised. 'You can't really blame them' for resisting, he said. Most people 'get stuck because they think from their work flow first,' he added, and they conclude AI is overhyped because they want AI to fit into their old way of working. 'It takes a lot more thinking and a lot more kind of prodding for you to change the way that you work,' but once you do, you see dramatic increases. A human can't possibly keep five call transcripts in their head while you're trying to write a proposal to a client, he offers, but AI can. Ikea echoed Wöhle when reached for comment, saying that its 'people-first AI approach focuses on augmentation, not automation.' A spokesperson said Ikea is using AI to automate tasks, not jobs, freeing up time for value-added, human-centric work. The WRITER report notes that companies with formal AI strategies are far more likely to succeed, and those who heavily invest in AI outperform their peers by a large margin. But, as Vaughan's experience shows, investment without belief and buy-in can be wasted energy. 'The culture needed to be built. Ultimately, we ended up having to go out and recruit and hire people that were already of the same mind. Changing minds was harder than adding skills.' For Vaughan, there's no ambiguity. Would he do it again? He doesn't hesitate: He'd rather endure months of pain and build a new, AI-driven foundation from scratch than let an organization drift into irrelevance. 'This is not a tech change. It is a cultural change, and it is a business change.' He said he doesn't recommend that others follow his lead and swap out 80% of their staff. 'I do not recommend that at all. That was not our goal. It was extremely difficult.' But at the end of the day, he added, everybody's got to be in the same boat, rowing in the same direction. Otherwise, 'we don't get where we're going.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio