New Cars Are Too Expensive For The Typical Family, Says Study (gulfnews.com) 622
An anonymous reader quotes a report from GulfNews: A new analysis from Bankrate.com found that a median-income household in the U.S. could not afford the average price of a new vehicle in any of the 50 largest cities in the country, though cars are more affordable in some cities than others. The average price of a new car or light truck in 2016 is about $34,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. That's in part because new cars are loaded with helpful but expensive safety features like collision-avoidance systems. Bankrate calculated an "affordable" purchase price for major cities, using median incomes from U.S. census data, and factoring in costs for sales taxes and insurance. In San Jose, California -- the heart of Silicon Valley -- the median income is about $84,000, and an "affordable" new car purchase price is about $33,000 -- close to, but still below, the average new car price. In lower-income cities, however, affordable purchase prices for a typical family are far below the average cost of a new car. In Hartford, Connecticut, where the median income is about $29,000, an affordable purchase price is about $8,000 -- about a quarter of the average new-car price. Experian Automotive said the number of new cars bought with financing rose to more than 86 percent (Source: may be paywalled) in the first quarter of this year. The average loan amount topped $30,000, with the average term for a new-car loan in the 68-month range -- some stretch as long as seven years.
median vs average (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not the case of median home prices, which does represent the homes sold in an area, and a high median home price will re
Re: (Score:2)
Tl;dr there are a lot of cars under $20,000, so the fact that the average person can't afford the average car is irrelevant. The average person can afford a car.
And that's not even taking into account used cars, which I consider to be an excellent option, even though I can afford something more.
Re:median vs average (Score:4, Informative)
Came here to say this. The mean price is driven up by pickup trucks (the prices are skyrocketing on those due to the financing available for them, something like what happened to student loans) and possibly even 6/7-digit supercars. A regular midsize sedan costs somewhere in the ballpark of $18k~$25k, maybe a little more for a hybrid or EV. Surely well under $30k.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also just a flawed place to use the average of any kind. If you want to assert that people can't afford a new car, you need to compare the cost of low end new cars to the median income. Including $80,000 Mercedes' and $60,000 trucks in the calculation makes no sense at all. No one on the median income cares about $80,000 Mercedes', they care about $10,000 Kias.
Re:median vs average (Score:5, Informative)
You should never spend more than 20% of you annual income on a car.
Where did that rule come from?
Re:median vs average (Score:5, Informative)
84% of statistics are made up; however, GP is not 100% wrong, just wrong about what cost should not exceed 20% of your income.
According to AAA, an organization more reputable than Bankrate.com, the cost to own and drive a vehicle in the USA today is $8,558 per year. That's a number with a lot of precision but without a lot of accuracy. They have an article [aaa.com] up on the web that talks through their assumptions and calculations, though. Fun fact: they note that the cost of owning and driving a car has fallen to a six-year low, so TFA's author can go peddle their papers someplace else.
Back to GP! 5 x $8,558 is $42,790, which is not so far off what actual people actually working actually make. If you're making less you should consider a small sedan, which AAA estimates costs only $6,579 annually. You can do a little better if you buy a good used car. You can't do much better, though, and there is an element of luck around whether you buy a car from a careful owner or a doofus.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: they note that the cost of owning and driving a car has fallen to a six-year low, so TFA's author can go peddle their papers someplace else.
That's worth mentioning again. It's hard to find good statistics about inequality.
Re: (Score:2)
It's bullshit. You should decide what is important to you and budget your annual income.
Travel expenses should be one of the slices.
You can buy a $50k car and still keep your annual Travel expenses a smaller % of your annual income by loaning out the purchase money. Then per year you include the Loan servicing costs Plus Amount of Principle that you will pay during that year.
You just need to make sure your car will last at least as long as the loan term. And those amounts stay below your desired
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's nuts. Borrowing money to buy a car? You're already doing it wrong (unless it's a work vehicle, or your first reliable car after getting your first real job).
Spending $50k on a car when you need to borrow money to buy it is insane. And travel expenses as a significant part of your budget before retirement? That's a plan for a retirement involving cat food.
Re: (Score:3)
Further, if you can make the payments on that $50k car, then save that money instead, and soon enough you won't need a loan.
Re:median vs average (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does everyone have to find a new car? I could easily afford a new car, but my last 3 purchases have all been for cars that are 2-4 years old. You save thousands of dollars that way, and you still have a very good car that will last you for years (provided you've done your research).
As soon as I saw the headline I thought "since when does the typical family buy a new car?" Upper middle class families can do that, but smarter upper middle class people aren't obsessed with being the first owner of a car, since you have to pay a huge premium for that privilege.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why does everyone have to find a new car?
Because if you're not an automotive engineer, a new car gives you a fighting chance not to be fucked.
Re: (Score:3)
Man a lot of people don't even know how to change an oil filter. If anything goes wrong once it's out of warranty they're at the mercy of a mechanic. It's like people having to take their computer to best buy because it wont boot, most end up just buying a new one when all they needed was a new hard drive.
I know how to do that. I take the car to the mechanic near where I work, walk to work, walk back at the end of the day and pick it up complete with fresh oil and oil filter.
I have hobbies. Fixing cars isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems the days of a car losing half its value when it rolls over the dealer curb are over.
I had also noticed this in my own research the last time I was in the market for a car. I have a couple of theories that dovetail well with the premise of TFA:
First, as mentioned in TFA, the average quality level of most cars has been increasing. Even mid-market and entry level cars come with all sorts of safety options, better engineering and higher quality assemblies. The days of dirt cheap new cars, ala the "Barbecue that Seats Four" (aka the Ford Pinto) are definitely behind us now.
Second, cars last lon
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the UK, all respectable dealerships check vehicles over thoroughly and offer a warranty (if they do end up with a clunker on their hands, they send it off to auction rather than risk getting a bad name). Buying new is largely a status (or company fleet) thing; nearly-new second hand is the smart move.
Re: (Score:3)
"Respectable dealership" is an oxymoron here in the states.
Re: (Score:2)
You should never spend more than 20% of you annual income on a car. Median income in the US is ~$50,000 per year. So half the US population can only afford a are of $10,000. Good luck finding a new car at that price.
Where did you get the 20% figure? I typically spend about half my annual income on a new car. I start saving for my next car shortly after I buy one.
Re: (Score:2)
I typically spend about half my annual income on a new car
Half on your car, 30% on housing, that doesn't leave much. Unless you're sleeping in your car or living in your parents' basement.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree that spending half your annual income on a new car is pretty insane, you're misinterpreting the parent. He's saying that he spends 50% of his annual income every $TIME_UNTIL_CAR_REPLACEMENT, not 50% of his annual income per year. He presumably does not replace his car every year.
Re: (Score:3)
The rule of thumb I heard was that your vehicle expenses (loan/lease, insurance, fuel, maintenance, etc.) shouldn't be more than 20% of your total expenses. It doesn't have to do with the value of the car. Similarly housing costs (rent/mortgage) aren't supposed to more than 30% or 35%. That doesn't mean you can only buy a house of $15,000.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why there are these magical things called loans
And there are magical things called second-hand cars too, which can reduce the cost.
Re: median vs average (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and a lot more people should probably go that route of they can't afford a car. My income is ~80k/yr and I've never owned a new car in my life. The newest car I've ever had is a 2013 Camry that I bought in 2015 for less than half of its msrp, and I just paid cash for it. In fact I've never had to borrow money to buy a car, even in the days when my income was shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I have done similar, but with a twist: I have bought used cars with cash from my parents when they wanted to get something newer. I know the condition/history of the car, I get a good deal, and my state waives sales tax when transferring the property to another family member if you fill out the right forms.
Added bonus: since I primarily bike commute to work, I get another 5-10 years out of the car.
Re: (Score:3)
The ones in Seattle are usually empty. I often have the bus to myself, but generally I'm one of 3-4 people. What a waste!!!
Maybe if you showered more people would get on.
Re: (Score:2)
The single biggest factor affecting savings at retirement is how often you've replaced your car in your lifetime. Unfortunately, holding on to a new car for more than 6 years stops helping much (annual costs become dominated by other factors). Going cheaper helps a lot.
20% sounds very low to me, though. I've tried to keep it to 25-30%, and that's worked well for me. Spending 40%+ of a year's pay on a car is just a bad life strategy.
Re:median vs average (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, holding on to a new car for more than 6 years stops helping much (annual costs become dominated by other factors).
???
I generally hold onto a car over 10 years, and it's never cost me that much extra. You *do* need to maintain it as you go along, and it depends on how much you drive, but my current car is from the 1990's and isn't yet in condition where it needs to be replaces, though it's getting there.
Re:median vs average (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an 07 Chevy. The biggest expense I've had on my car was when it got hit by a forklift while parked. That was 3k in body work covered by insurance. The next biggest expense was about 700 to replace the brake disks because I let the brake pads wear down to the metal. Oops; everyone has to learn somehow to replace their brake pads regularly
Other than that, new brake pads and fuel injector cleaning every two years (200 a pop). New spark plugs every four years. New tires every ~3-4 years depending on mileage (again, 300-400 depending on tires). New battery and timing belt at six or seven years.(500-600, I don't recall). Oil changes every three months ($30). All of those are recurring costs no matter whether your car just came off the line or is ten years old.
And lastly it goes without saying that even if you do make mid six figures, a 25k car gets you to work on time just as well as a 50k car. There's not even that much difference in the bells and whistles these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Bought a '98 Camry about 10 years ago for 8
Re:median vs average (Score:4, Insightful)
Do the math.
Resale value varies a lot by car and by condition, but to have some numbers, lets look at a car that is worth 1/3rd it's upfront cost after 6 years, vs 10% after 10 years. The difference in depreciation is then 11% vs 9%, per year. If that were the only cost of car ownership, that would be significant - you could get a 20% better car by keeping it for 10 years instead of 6.
But other costs matter too. Maintenance (which does get worse over time), insurance, gas, parking, tolls, etc. So you're maybe looking at being able to get a 10% more expensive car at replacement time by keeping the car for 10 years rather than 6. That's not even a step up to the next model for most manufacturers.
So, for the same money, do you get better value by getting a $30k car every 6 years, or a $33k car every 10 years? Seems very subjective to me: if you value "newness", the former is a better deal, if you don't the latter, but it's a small enough difference either way.
What is a "20% better car"? Is there an objective absolute "car goodness" measurement scale I never heard of?
You seem so deeply embedded in the "car resale and buy new" paradigm that you cannot see that there is an entirely different way to manage you car needs. Buy a car and keep it on the road until such time that the repair costs are no longer economical when prorated over the additional mileage gained, or ti simply becomes too unreliable. I keep my car costs low by buying used (mostly, sometimes new) and then never selling the vehicle while it still runs, subject to the repair cost and reliability criteria just mentioned. "Resale value" is a piece of paper to me, I never resell until end of life.
But you are the source of the good deals on the used car market. Keep it up. I may buy your depreciated but perfectly serviceable car.
If you value "newness" you are absolutely going to spend big additional bucks over the years to satisfy this predilection. If you don't the difference is "not small either way" it is huge.
As you say, do the (real) math.
Re: (Score:3)
His pads hit metal so the rotors were probably impossible to refurbish. Those can cost quite a bit for 4 of them assuming that all of them were damaged. More likely he got ripped off and only 1 or at most 2 of them were bad. Depending on the car those are about 30 to 100 dollars per wheel. Brake pads might be 50 bucks per brake pair for OEM style pads. That's a lot more than 50 bucks in parts. Still 700 sounds really excessive, he probably took it to his dealer and you know those guys are going to fuc
Re: (Score:3)
Location is a huge factor. You could make 200k in a metro area and just live the upper middle class lifestyle. Or you can make 100k and live the same life style in a rural area only a hundred miles away. Housing is considered your largest expense taking between supposably 1/3 for renting and 1/2 for a mortgage of your income. Then the cost of goods in the area are inflated to pay everyone else larger wages to live in that area.
That $15 minimum wage debate is because in some areas of the US $15 an hour (30
Re: (Score:3)
As a statistician (well, once upon a time) let me say that the median is one of three averages. The averages are the median, the mean, and the mode. Each is an average with certain characteristics and areas of utility. If you've got a normal bell curve they are the same number.
For most purposes involving income the useful averages are the median or the mode. Not the mean, which is unduly influenced by extreme values. (I didn't read the article, so I'm only commenting on your response.)
Why do people think self driving cars will catch o (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do people think self driving cars will catch on? If anything, they will be more complex with even more sensors and systems needed to operate safely. If typical families already can't afford new cars, why would they be able to afford even more complex and expensive cars? The genius of Henry Ford wasn't building the best and most sophisticated car, but finding a way to lower production costs and make them affordable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Why do people think self driving cars will cat (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't want a dirty car that strangers have been in. They don't mind a dirty car that is one they only use.
Re: Why do people think self driving cars will cat (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't want a dirty car that strangers have been in. They don't mind a dirty car that is one they only use.
Plenty of people in cities get by on taxis and car-share, self driving cars will expand that to suburban areas.
None of the car-share cars I've used have been "dirty", they are regularly cleaned and maintained.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of people also get by walking several miles in the sun/rain/snow/dark.
Sometimes people simply don't have a choice.
But they do have a choice - many carless city dwellers can afford a car payment and even a garage space (they may even have a deeded space that they aren't using), but chose not to own a car because there's no point - why buy an expensive depreciating asset that sits around unused 90% of the time if they don't have use it to get to work or run errands because they can get to work by train and walk to the grocery store?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people think self driving cars will catch on?
Re: (Score:2)
There will still be reasons for people to want ownership of their car. For one, you can
Re: (Score:2)
You and everyone else that thinks that is a massive moron.
Thanks for the insight, Anonymous Coward.
Here in Vancouver we already have a variation on this called Car2Go, and a competitor called Evo. The cars aren't driverless, but you just a take a car that's parked nearby, drive it to your destination, park it and walk away. You pay by the minute. Lots of people have given up on car ownership as a result of these services appearing.
Who's the moron now?
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, they will be more complex with even more sensors and systems needed to operate safely.
What do you mean, "if anything"? Of course they are more complex, with more sensors.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people think self driving cars will catch on? If anything, they will be more complex with even more sensors and systems needed to operate safely.
never having to worry about being in a car accident and thusly never having to pay for collision insurance will save you a lot of money. this is what is known as an long term investment. i know the short-sighted capitalists of the world who can't see beyond the next financial quarter don't understand but it's worth it over a long period of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people think self driving cars will catch on? If anything, they will be more complex with even more sensors and systems needed to operate safely. If typical families already can't afford new cars, why would they be able to afford even more complex and expensive cars? The genius of Henry Ford wasn't building the best and most sophisticated car, but finding a way to lower production costs and make them affordable.
Goods transport, people transport, older kids, elderly and others with medical conditions that prevent them from holding a license, I think. We know there's a lot of elderly that either have voluntarily or involuntarily given up driving, should give up driving and they know it or they're in denial but that I think would be quite happy to not drive. Many have been forced to leave their homes and get an apartment because without a car public transport is too rare and too hard to use and taxis too expensive in
Re: (Score:2)
I think they'll catch on because I want one, and I assume most other people have similar wants to me.
Poor graduated millennials (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I work for a local car dealership.
Yes, let's take the word of a car salesman on all this.
Re: Poor graduated millennials (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like we have independent evidence supporting his statements...
Naturally, that means you budget (Score:5, Insightful)
HAHAHAHAA, sorry.
In a sane world with rational people, this would mean you'd budget for a new car and buy only what you can afford. Of course, you may very well plan on using leprechaun gold at that point, while we're playing make believe.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people will borrow way too much for way too long, then complain about how it's not their fault. If it happens often enough, the government will get involved, ala "government backed loans"...then it'll really get exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One that gets into an accident. And traffic accidents are reported to be up this year.
Re: (Score:2)
People either are never taught or choose to ignore the idea that you should never borrow to pay for a depreciating asset unless that asset helps you be more productive than you would be without it by a margin greater than the financing cost.
So financing a car that doesn't make you more productive than a car that doesn't require financing is a silly financial move.
I don't count "autonomous cars as a subscription" as a meaningful improvement either; it means individuals are no longer owners of capital and are
Re: (Score:2)
I don't count "autonomous cars as a subscription" as a meaningful improvement either;
Why not?
it means individuals are no longer owners of capital and are therefore giving up something important.
Presumably the subscription has to be beneficial for people to buy it.... E.G. The subscription costs less than owning a car. This means that instead of tying up your "capital" by purchasing a depreciating asset, that you get to keep that excess capital (cash) in your pocket, from which you can draw t
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I left out a few words there - "individuals are no longer owners of their transportation capital." So maybe yeah their financial costs are lower and they have invested in financial instruments or whatever, but they are now at the mercy of the vehicle pool - that is the "something important" which was exchanged for the lower cost.
Cars Are Not More Expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the depressing thing: cars aren't really more expensive than they used to be. This is not a shift in car prices. This is a shift in the financial solvency of the American people.
Re:Cars Are Not More Expensive (Score:5, Informative)
In 1973 a new Datsun (Nissan) 510 cost around $2300, which is around $13,000 today. By contrast, a 2016 Nissan Versa sells for about $12,000 MSRP - And the Versa is a much better made car than the 510 was.
Re: Cars Are Not More Expensive--BS!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Diesel saloon?
No thanks, tequila!
Re:Cars Are Not More Expensive--BS!!! (Score:5, Informative)
If I've used the Inflation Calculator correctly, then the cumulative inflation of the U.S. dollar from 1969 to 2016 is 554.6%. And so that $13k Mercedes-Benz in 1969 would cost ~ $85k in 2016. Much more than the $30k you cited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not usually that high, but it would depend on the brand and model. You could get a 21“ rca XL 100 from the lowest feature trim-line for about $450 - $500 in 72 -73. You'd get AFT and ACC for that price but no remote control. Aloso it would be a stand style tv not one of those wood cabinet models.
Living room options (Score:3)
... That's in part because new cars are loaded with helpful but expensive safety features like collision-avoidance systems...
It is not really the safety features, but the "make the car more like a living room" features, that make cars a lot more expensive.
. /sarcasm
But don't worry, the car manufacturers are slowly turning the vehicles into remote monitoring and surveillance environments so that every aspect of our lives can be sold to the marketeers. That should drive down the price.
Is collision avoidance *that* expensive? (Score:2)
Does collision avoidance add significantly to the price of the car? At least one company sells an add-on collision avoidance system [consumerreports.org] that costs around $1100. If this company can retail a compete add-on system for only $1100, it must cost manufacturers less than than to build it in to the car (they may sell the option as an add-on for thousands of dollars, but that has no relation to what it actually costs them to build it)
But even $1100 is less than 3% of a $34,000 car, so it doesn't seem fair to blame it f
Re: (Score:3)
Packages get bundles because it's inefficient to offer them as *factory* options a la carte. That $3300 tech package includes an integrated version of the $1700 item you linked, cruise control, GPS nav and a backup camera system. You could probably put together an equivalent bolt-on system for all of that for $2500, so asking for 25-30% markup at the retail level really doesn't seem overbearing. Upselling is one of the most common profit centers in any business. So, in a way, it is that expensive. Though on
Welcome to third world standard of life (Score:3)
Here in Brazil we usually buy a car in 60 - 72 not so cheap monthly payments.
That's in part because new cars are loaded with helpful but expensive safety features like collision-avoidance systems.
It's never because of abusive profit margins in a not truly competitive market. Down here they always blame the taxes (they are included in the price and not discriminated).
Buy used? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never owed a new car, I don't think its a very good value. Cars lose like half their value in the first few years, and the insurance kills you (and road taxes, some places charge road fees based on how old the car is.).
Why everyone should buy new? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is dumb to buy a new car. It loses 25% of the value the moment you take possession. Then rusts and loses value continuously. You can get fantastic almost as good as new car, one or two years old, some 30% cheaper.
If you keep your car for a long time, then it can be worth buying new since you know it was well taken care of. I bought my car new and 11 years later, am still driving it. While I've enjoyed the past 8 years of no car payments, I'm finally thinking of replacing it to get a car with better gas mileage and modern safety features.
Re: (Score:3)
This is no longer the case. A quality, well built Camry, Civic, BMW or Accord loses about 10% when you drive it off the lot. Some American cars as well as some high end cars on the other hand do lose a lot more of their value on possession sometimes even more than 25%.
The most expensive thing I own ... (Score:2)
... is the MacBook Air I'm typing this on. And it's from 2011 and I only bought it because my layoff in that year had an OK severance coming with it.
Granted, I hardly have any debt (a few hundred Euros) but if I had the money to buy a new car I'd certainly not use it for that. I'd use it for the downpayment on a small appartment or a microhouse.
As for the car, I have been toying with the thought of buy a used Smart to be more flexible. ... Couldn't say if that's happening anytime soon. Maybe I'll just wait
Average car? (Score:5, Informative)
Many decent family cars out there are NOT, in any way, 34K new. A new Mazda 3 is a sensible car and starts under 20K. A Camry is 25K. You could buy a 350Z for less than 34K!
So plenty of families can afford new cars: They just can't afford large, over featured, expensive to repair urban assault vehicles. US streets would be better if nobody could.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I will never set foot in a dealership until I know exactly what car I am going to buy (down to VIN), and how much I am going to pay for it, including taxes and fees and how am I going to pay for it, i.e. cash or pre-arranged finance with a third party. Everything is negotiated and agreed upon in advance. If they try any bait and switch I leave. They might try to lure me with their low APR financing, and I might take it if it is significantly better than what I have - say 0%. They might try to sell me extend
What is a Warranty Worth ? (Score:3)
Silly study and sensational finding (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, if you spend more than 30 grand on a new car, you're already rolling in a lot of superfluous or unused features. My family members always end up buying well-equipped (not best equipped) midsize sedans like Toyota Camry and Honda Accord in the low 20Ks, and usually under the sticker price. And in fact, Camry and Accord have gotten too fat to even be called mid-sized. So if you want to save more money, go for a 20K compact car, like a Corolla, Focus, or Civic, etc. This still have four doors and five seats. Plenty for an average family, specially with younger children.
There is a lot of discussions about buying used (Score:3)
While the reality is that average car on the road is 11+ years old. If you take out commercial and industrial cars probably average consumer age is approximately 10 years.
While many advocate buying used, this used car needs to become a new purchase first, and, just as the statistics shows, on average every tenth car on the road is probably a new car. If everyone would be buying a used car, then there would be no supply of new cars.
Reality is that existing prices for both new and resale values represents a finely tuned, yet fluid, supply and demand model, that takes into account both purchasing power, vanity, depreciation, reliability, cost of auto-mechanics labor, crash accidents statistics, auto-industry profit margins and many other factors.
Yes, brand new car is often overpriced. That is part of the model, where salespeople commissions and average buyer's vanity comes into a play. It is also true, that sometimes the old is just not the right choice for some people.
Wrong factors (Score:4, Insightful)
That's in part because new cars are loaded with helpful but expensive safety features like collision-avoidance systems.
Wrong factors. Median income people haven't been able to afford new cars for a while. And this is more a function of loss in purchasing power than about new (and expensive) safety features.
People in such conditions do what they have done for a long time - buy used cars. #firstworldproblem.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the lighter materials used and the trend towards smaller, both of which decrease survivability
As a rather tall individual, car shopping for me is rather big chore as it's not just a Q of "what do I fit in?" but "which vehicle that I fit in will not see the dashboard shatter my knees should I hit something at 20 mph?" (in far too many vehicles, parts of my body
Re: (Score:2)
In college, I drove a '72 Chrysler Imperial. Other cars used to bounce off me like the Von Erichs off of Andre the Giant. And, it had a bench seat in the front that was big enough to land a small plane on. I met
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure?
I'm seeing plenty mostly-mechanical cars doing just fine, at least they are much less of a hassle from a maintenance perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
There is definitely a trade off between paying more for a car and getting more years out of it, and I suspect enough of us absolutely loathe car shopping and have been utterly disappointed with some of the faster moving features (mostly electronics) that might beget a faster update cycle that we are making that trade. Why buy new? There isn't a substantial increase in fuel economy, the feature-set is mostly decades old stuff, and the electronics are usually best done aftermarket...the price gouging on repla
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. I'm trying to replace a 16 year pickup truck. The new ones get the same mileage. They festooned with all manner of gizmos that I don't really want. They're harder to see out of (because of the smaller windows from the side airbags -yes, they're useful but so is seeing things). They cost close to $50,000.
That is a hell of a lot of maintenance on my old truck. Unfortunately, GM built themselves into a corner. It's fundamentally sound. Even the interior looks OK.
So it's off to the local shop to
Re: (Score:2)
So for around $3000 I have a nice, reliable car
It's not a reliable car, it could break any moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Buy very used... (Score:3)
Got any other stupid arguments against buying a used car?
I don't, however I've certainly got some intelligent and informed arguments against buying a used piece of shit FWD Dodge. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
I drive a really old used car (1990), but I also carry my cell phone because I know it could break down unexpectedly, and I'll have to deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Both, but much more the car.
The trick is to project 'I can afford a lawyer'.
Skip the 'feral stig' bumper stickers.
Re: (Score:3)
THANKS OBAMA!!! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I there nothing we can't blame him for?
It makes life easier for the dull among us.
Re: (Score:2)
Another possibility, if the average family with an average of 3.5 members got rid of their average cell phone plan that costs an average of $60/mo per phone they would save an average of $210/mo which would let them afford the median priced automobile.
I think the average family worried about affording a car has a much cheaper cell phone plan than that.
Re:Rule of thumb (Score:5, Insightful)
The diamond ring and the family car are both 20th century inventions. I thought the rule was spending 52 weeks income on a car and 4 weeks income on a diamond ring. Now it's 21 weeks for a suburban necessity and 13 weeks for a shiny decoration. What strange priorities for a not so brave, new world.
Having a car as a 20th Century invention is rooted in the undeniable utility of having a vehicle that can transport people and goods long distances quickly.
The "requirement" that every marriage requires a large investment up-front in a diamond is purely the product of a marketing campaign by a diamond cartel (i.e. a price-fixing monopoly). Here is a brief, but honest as far as it goes, account by an organization dedicated to selling you diamonds [americangemsociety.org]. Note that the founding of the American Gem Society, in 1934, precisely coincides with the start of the De Beers cartel hard sell. It is striking that a trade organization, founded as part of a marketing scheme, does not try to hide its own origin.
Lengthier accounts of this bizarre pure luxury business are easy [hubspot.com] to [theatlantic.com] find [exposingtruth.com].
Regarding those "guidelines" (treated as "rules" by the industry) for how much to spend in a diamond ring - if you let marketing literature tell you what you should spend money on, you are perhaps typical, but still you are just being a patsy.
When I got married, no diamond was involved. It was a ridiculous waste of money, absolutely not an investment (they are virtually impossible to resell, the industry makes sure of that), and at that time a prop for the Apartheid regime. That last reason had ended, and recent "conflict diamond" rules have greatly reduced the tendency of diamond purchases to support mass murderers, but not ended that last problem entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
Globalism is not the cause. Manufacturing efficiency is the cause. Many "third world" countries where you used to get dirt cheap labor are starting to pay more for workers. Not American or EU rates, but the ratio has closed by an order of magnitude in the last 20 years.
What you're seeing is that goods - things - have stayed the same cost or risen only slightly, but labor costs have increase dramatically. The per-unit cost for a widget has become trivial because we can make a million widgets with basic, eas