What the Media, and Harvard, Miss About China’s Electric Cars

Plus, Taliban ban women’s laughter; presidential endorsement; Britain exit tax

A BYD Dolphin electric vehicle is pictured in a handout photo from the Chinese company.

Inexpensive Chinese-made electric cars are the subject of recent articles in three news outlets—the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Gazette, and Marketplace. All three omit or severely downplay two key aspects of the story—China’s ban on independent, free labor unions, and the national security risks of Chinese electric cars.

The Wall Street Journal story, headlined “What Scared Ford’s CEO in China,” is long and got prominent placement in Saturday’s print edition. It quotes Ford CEO Jim Farley describing Chinese electric vehicles as an “existential threat,” paraphrasing his concern about their “low-cost supply base.” The words “labor union” don’t appear in the Journal article. Nor is there any information about wages and working conditions at the Chinese automakers, and how they compare to those of American workers. 

Public radio’s Marketplace program does a bit better in a September 9 article by Jennifer Pak headlined “How can China make EVs that sell for less than $20,000?” That article reports that a BYD car assembly worker was being paid about $990 a month, working 270 to 280 hours a month, and getting one or two days off a month. As the Marketplace article puts it, “That means he works at least 67 hours per week with almost no rest during weekends. Wu earns, at best, about $3.60 per hour versus an average of 43 hours a week and $28 an hour for auto factory workers in the U.S. last year.”

Why wouldn’t the Chinese workers try to get together and organize to negotiate better wages and working conditions?

The explanation is available in the U.S. State Department’s annual human rights report, in the section on worker rights in China. In sum, the only “union” that exists in China is one controlled by the Chinese Communist Party: “The law did not provide for freedom of association, and workers were not free to organize or join unions of their own choosing. The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) was the only union recognized under the law. Independent unions were illegal, and the law did not protect the right to strike. …There was no legal obligation for employers to negotiate or to bargain in good faith, and some employers refused to do so. …The law did not protect workers who requested or took part in collective negotiations with their employers independent of the officially recognized union.”

The “unions” in China represent the interest of the Chinese Communist Party, not the interest of the factory workers. More from the State Department report: “All union activity had to be approved by and organized under the ACFTU, a CCP organ chaired by a member of the Politburo. …The ACFTU and the CCP used a variety of mechanisms to influence the selection of trade union representatives. Although the law stated trade union officers at each level should be elected, ACFTU-affiliated unions appointed most factory-level union officers, often in coordination with employers. Official union leaders were often drawn from the ranks of management. Direct election by workers of union leaders continued to be rare, occurred only at the enterprise level, and was subject to supervision by higher levels of the union or the CCP. In enterprises where direct election of union officers took place, regional ACFTU officers and local CCP authorities retained control over the selection and approval of candidates. Even in these cases, workers and NGOs expressed concern regarding the credibility of elections.”

Anyone who tries to create a real union in Communist China risks getting thrown in prison by the Chinese Communists, the State Department says: “The ACFTU constituent unions were generally ineffective in representing and protecting the rights and interests of workers. Workers generally did not view the ACFTU as an advocate, especially migrant workers, who rarely interacted with union officials. The government effectively maintained the primacy of the ACFTU and prevented the emergence of independent labor organizations….Coordinated efforts by governments at the central, provincial, and local levels, including censorship, surveillance, harassment, detention, and travel restrictions on labor rights defenders and restrictions on funding sources for NGOs, disrupted labor rights advocacy. The government continued to target labor activists, students, and others advocating for worker rights. The International Labor Organization’s Committee on the Freedom of Association noted concern regarding the reports of government harassment, intimidation, arrests, and physical abuse.”

I’m familiar with and sympathetic to all the economic arguments for free trade and against tariffs, grounded in comparative advantage and mutual benefits. Yet it’s almost Orwellian to use the word “free” to describe trade with a dictatorial country that uses the coercive power of the Communist state to prevent workers from freely associating and bargaining collectively. 

Nor is American concern for Chinese workers entirely altruistic. Unfree regimes, like China, tend to be hostile not only to their own people but to the rest of the world. 

You don’t have to be a right-wing China hawk or a neoconservative to be concerned about the national security considerations for America of having a lot of Chinese-made vehicles on American roads. Democrat Gina Raimondo, the former governor of Rhode Island and the commerce secretary in the Biden-Harris administration, warned in a March 2024 television interview about both the surveillance capabilities of the Chinese cars and the risk that they could be remotely disabled. “The threats are potentially very significant,” she said. “Imagine a world where there’s 3 million Chinese vehicles on the road in America, and Beijing can turn them all off at the same time.”

Particularly disappointing is the article on Chinese EVs published by the Harvard Gazette, an organ of the Harvard University central administration. “EVs fight global warming but are costly. So why aren’t we driving $10,000 Chinese imports?” the Gazette article is headlined. The article, by “Harvard Staff Writer Alvin Powell,” entirely omits China’s lack of independent labor unions or the national security concern identified by Secretary Raimondo.

Harvard just got done with a big task force report on “institutional voice” about how Harvard institutionally was going to say neutral on policy issues, yet here is the central administration-published Harvard Gazette basically publishing a one-sided story based on the sketchy idea that the solution to climate change is for America to import more stuff from Communist China. Where were the editors?

Even judged by the yardstick “intellectual vitality,” another Harvard buzzword, there’s no sense from the Gazette article that various Harvard-affiliated scholars might have different views about how much of a priority to place on national security or labor rights versus climate change. There is a single tenured professor quoted in the whole story, an economist whose position is at the Kennedy School and who is not listed as a faculty member in the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences economics department. At one point, the article lists as a possible reason in favor of tariffs the risk that a lack of tariffs might hurt U.S. autoworkers and thus elect Donald Trump: “In fact, harm to those companies and workers would have electoral repercussions severe enough that, on the nation’s deeply divided political landscape, they could tip the result toward an administration hostile to efforts to address climate change, Lee said.”

Anyway, Harvard can talk about institutional neutrality and intellectual vitality all it wants. Yet so long as community members keep reading articles like this in the central-administration-published Harvard Gazette—with no possibility of reader comments or letters to the editor—it’ll be readily visible how much room remains for further progress. 

Taliban ban women’s laughter: The Washington Post’s Rick Noack reports on the latest setback for women’s rights during the Biden-Harris administration:  

The new religious code issued late last month bans women from raising their voices, reciting the Quran in public and looking at men other than their husbands or relatives. It requires women to cover the lower half of their faces in addition to donning a head covering they were already expected to wear, among other rules.

…Afghan women, speaking in phone interviews over the past week, pointed to mounting signs of a crackdown in urban areas, where rules had been less rigorously enforced….Officers are roaming bus stops and shopping centers searching for dress-code violations or any women who might laugh or raise their voices.

Vice President Harris was asked in the debate whether she had any regrets over the withdrawal from Afghanistan. She replied, “Well, I will tell you, I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan.”

Presidential endorsement: George F. Will, who has been writing a column for the Washington Post since 1974, or half a century, writes, in a September 12 piece headlined, “Post-debate, the optimum 2024 political outcome comes into view,”: “This election pits someone whose current persona is obviously synthetic against someone whose dishonesty in the service of his egotism is scarily authentic. Now, however, traditional conservatives can envision the least unpalatable November outcome. They have an unenthralled understanding of government’s proper scope and actual competence. So, their preferred outcome would be the election of Harris, and of a Republican Senate to regularly remind her that most Americans disagree with most of what she believes.”

The “their” and “they” makes it a little unclear whether Will is offering the endorsement of Harris ad a Republican Senate or just describing it. 

Give Will credit for turning it into a full column; I offered the idea up as a tweet on September 5: “Harris with an R Senate or Trump with a D House best outcome for policy, democracy, markets.”

Some of this is just being provocative or contrarian. I’ve been hesitant to push it here knowing that it’s probably bad business to alienate the many readers who, with some justification, view either Trump or Harris as greater threats and who don’t like the bothsidesing of them. There may be others who would prefer that a president’s policy initiatives be enacted by Congress rather than constrained by it. If a Democratic Congress blocks the Trump mass deportations and tariffs, or if a Republican Congress blocks Harris’s tax increases and Supreme Court term limits, or if a Democratic Congress spends all its time investigating or impeaching Trump, that might please some people, but it could also generate a lot of conflict and frustration rather than unification through success.

That the polls are showing such a close election at the moment, along with closely divided houses of Congress, may be a signal that neither major political party has earned the confidence from voters for full control of the government. Maybe that will change between now and election day. 

Mike Johnson has been pretty solid as speaker of the House; if there’s a political leader in Washington who doesn’t deserve firing, it’s him. But if Biden-Harris, Majority Leader Schumer, and Speaker Johnson all get wiped out in an anti-incumbent “change” election, it’ll help explain why the Harris team is so eager to define her as “turn the page,” despite her status as the sitting vice president. 

A British Reichsfluchsteuer?: Various American politicians—Senator Schumer, Hillary Clinton—have floated the idea of raising an “exit tax” penalty to make it even harder than it already is for Americans to leave for other countries. Now the Telegraph reports (“How Labour could impose an ‘exit tax’ on wealthy Britons fleeing the country”) that a left-leaning think tank with ties to the governing Labour Party is pushing the idea of making capital gains due on exit.

The Committee to Unleash Prosperity calls it “a figurative Berlin Wall to discourage rich people from leaving.”

Ideally the opportunity, freedom, and rule of law offered in a country would be such that wealthy people would not want to leave voluntarily but rather would be competing to get in. The Telegraph has a graphic showing that only Communist China is set to lose more millionaires than the UK is.

Sian Leah Beilock on the danger of conformity: The president of Dartmouth, Sian Leah Beilock, has a piece in the Atlantic: “when a group of students takes over a building or establishes an encampment on shared campus grounds and declares that this shared educational space belongs to only one ideological view, the power and potential of the university dies.” She warns, “ideological diversity is already in short supply among administrators and faculty at many colleges and universities.”

Michigan assault reported: The Anti-Defamation League is offering a $5,000 reward for what the Ann Arbor, Michigan, police are calling a “bias-motivated assault.” According to police, “the 19-year-old male victim reported he was walking when a group of unknown males behind him asked if he was Jewish. When he replied yes, the group of males proceeded to assault him.” The ADL CEO said the victim of the attack was a Jewish student at the University of Michigan.

Thank you: Unlike the Harvard Gazette, we aren’t backed by Harvard’s $50 billion endowment. And unlike Chinese electric vehicle-makers, we get no subsidies from the Chinese Communist government. The Editors is a reader-supported publication. Thanks to our paying customers. If you can spare the $8 a month or $80 a year, please sign up today to ensure your continued access and sustain our independent journalism.