Why wouldn't it? Capitalism ensures that price drops reach the customer (unless there are cartels, of course, which are game-theoretically hard).
That said, there absolutely is the potential for large key players to aquire more control and|or to maximise their profits rather than minimise and end price.
Today’s battery and minerals supply chains revolve around China
China produces three-quarters of all lithium-ion batteries and is home to 70% of production capacity for cathodes and 85% for anodes (both are key components of batteries). Over half of lithium, cobalt and graphite processing and refining capacity is located in China.
Europe is responsible for over one-quarter of global EV assembly, but it is home to very little of the supply chain apart from cobalt processing at 20%.
The United States has an even smaller role in the global EV battery supply chain, with only 10% of EV production and 7% of battery production capacity.
Korea and Japan have considerable shares of the supply chain downstream of raw material processing, particularly in the highly technical production of cathode and anode material. Korea is responsible for 15% of global cathode material production capacity, while Japan accounts for 14% of cathode and 11% of anode material production. Korean and Japanese companies are also involved in the production of other battery components such as separators.
Most key minerals are mined in resource-rich countries such as Australia, Chile and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and handled by a few major companies.
I ran a python script the other day using the French state data on pricing. Minimal wage was about 1000 euros after tax in 2003, and is 1300 in 2023. But 1000 in 2003 is about 2300 euros in 2023 according to the same official data.
I don't know a single vital thing in my life that is not more expensive now than when I was a kid: food, water, energy, shelter, clothes, health... They are all more expensive.
Now sure, internet access is less expensive and better, but you can't eat wifi.
Also, comparing changes in income deciles over time would be more useful than minimum wage changes, as legislatures are not necessarily reacting in real time.
> food, water, energy, shelter, clothes, health
Many of these are things where technological advances resulting in greater and greater economies of scale plateaued, or where technological advances mean that your expectation of the quality of goods or service greatly increased.
The former would be water/energy/shelter/food/clothes. The world has a lot more people competing for these resources, but there was no commensurate increase in supply.
The latter would be health, where the healthcare from your childhood is a greatly different product (at the advanced levels, not necessarily the routine checkup or flu visit).
But I'm sure you will find a reason while health is an exception.
Pretty easy to find an exception when you start with a false premise.
> Given that prices for health in the US are exorbitant because they are based on the free market
As the other poster pointed out: Your logic is flawed because your premise is wrong. If the US had state controlled medical, I have no doubt our politicians would figure out some way to ruin that too.
For the same reason that Americans can't buy a BYD Seagull.