Slashdot Mirror
New Cars Are Too Expensive For The Typical Family, Says Study (gulfnews.com)
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.
They are using median and average really loosely there, and comparing them in ways that don't make sense. It's a good advertisement for the website owner, though.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
I'm not too troubled by car loans stretching out into longer periods, because by and large modern cars hold up a lot better than in the past few decades...
Not to say car regulations could not use some pairing down as to safety regulations, since most modern cars I feel are less see to drive because visibility is impaired (giant thick pillars in all directions these days).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some have suggested that self-driving cars will lead to a decline in personal vehicle ownership. Instead, people will rent a car from a membership pool when they need it, paying a simple fee per use or per month instead of bearing all the costs of insurance, inspection and registration on themselves.
Majority of young people are graduating with 20-100k of school debt. Then working at BestBuy. Their credit is shot, I work for a local car dealership. The only people who come in to buy new are the Elderly. 50+. They use it for a year, trade it in against the next year's new one. The Millennials drive old run down not fit for the road Honda Accords or moms minivan because they still live at home until they're 30.
Since when did "typical" families buy brand new cars?
Since forever the middle class and better bought new cars, which gradually trickled down to the majority as used cars.
That makes them worth the cost.
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
If the 1% weren't hogging all the wealth for themselves
Get a bicycle or use public transportation.
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.
Why do people think self driving cars will catch on?
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.
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.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
I bought a 1998 Grand Caravan at 130,000 miles for $800, it needed $1400 in repairs right away (power steering pump, new rack and pinion & alignment). Paid for a new battery/alternator, new tires/brakes. A water pump went at 160,000, I watched a youtube video and had my car running for about $100. A new fuel pump replacement is due. So for around $3000 I have a nice, reliable car that seats 7, removable seats make it a cargo van, and it doesn't attract police attention (looks like a dadmobile). It's repairable by the mechanically inclined, and there's no touchscreen! Why would the average person pay $30,000 plus for a car?
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.
Interesting, considering that cars are necessary to survive in much of the country. I raise my eyebrow to the prospect that someone must finance-fasten themselves to an industrialized nation like that.
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?
... 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.
They will catch on because you won't own them, you will subscribe to them and share them with other people... like automated taxicabs
https://www.eliomotors.com/
In 1969, the cheapest Mercedes-Benz was $13K. (It was a diesel). Today the cheapest MB is $30K. The cheapest diesel saloon is much higher (if you can buy in the USA). Prices are higher. The Federal Government requires front airbags and the added $2K to the cost of a car. The Feds have added lots of $$$ to the actual cost of any automobile by creating and enforcing their safety regulations. Making cars higher, demanding higher mpg, making engines more complex (high control, fuel control, etc.), and other Federal Government requirements DO increase the price of each car. The MB Smart Car costs about $10K more in the USA than in Europe because of USA Federal Government regulations. And the USA version is also feature-crippled when compared to the European version. (Though the USA Smart Car will top out at 90 mph.)
Does collision avoidance add significantly to the price of the car? At least one company sells an add-on collision avoidance system 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 for new car price inflation. Bundling options together likely one factor that adds to the price inflation - buyers can't pick and chose the options they want -- want the Bluetooth calling? Well you need to get the $1200 "premium audio package". Want a sunroof? Then you'll have to upgrade to the LX model for $4000 more. Want collision avoidance? Then you'll need the $3300 "tech" package that includes adaptive cruise control, GPS navigation, and backup camera.
Of course, even if the average new car costs $34K, there are still lots of cars available for less, a 2017 base model Honda Accord costs $22K (add $1000 for collision avoidance). A VW Jetta or Chevy Cruz is around $17K.
You're a fucking idiot. You're going to talk about things you can't comprehend while not knowing how to use italics?
Ass clown.
Hybrids make sense when they're about only $5,000 more than gas. 10,000$ buys about 100,000 miles of gasoline, and that isn't factoring replacing your batteries. I think if a hybrid was a super economical value, everyone would be buying them.
There are two car markets: luxury and the market for those that don't want to or can't pay the luxury price. I bought a cheap Camry from my local dealer four years ago for about $22K. Nice mid-size car (though the rental agencies classify it as a large car). There are lower-cost models out there too in the same class. I think that the Sonata, Altima, Focus or Fusion, Malibu are all pretty good value vehicles out there. Yes, you can spend $40K+ for cars but you really don't have to. And then there are used cars which I hear are a bargain these days.
Now how about you adjust for inflation? :)
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).
Diesel saloon?
No thanks, tequila!
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It sounds to me like you are ignoring inflation.
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.
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.
So I can sit in a dirty smoked in car that will send my asthma symptoms nuts . Ever rent a zip car . No thanks
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.).
Peace, or Not?
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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
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.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
*off topic*
What can really blow the mind regarding inflation is that back in the 1970's a 19" Color Television was typically over $500.
Governments with central banks manipulating the currency may be "the new normal" but it's simply not a law of physics (or economics).
When the government borrows lots of money and then wants to pay it back "on the cheap", it prints money without any underlying economic activity to justify the increased quantity of paper money. This, in turn, means each unit of currency is worth less (and eventually worthless if you do too much of it. Google "Weimar Republic"). When people who want to sell something like a car for perhaps $5000 see that the actual value of a unit of currency (a trade-able token with no inherent value) has been reduced but they want the full VALUE for the actual THING or service they are offering (which,unlike the currency has ACTUAL inherent value) they must raise the price. Halve the value of the paper money? Double the price of the product.
Yes, inflation happens, but it's an artificial government creation. It's just a hidden form of government cheating of its debts, a hidden tax. Government borrows "dollars" that are worth X amount in gold or other real assets, then prints a lot of "dollars" and repays those debts with "dollars" that are actually worth less gold or other real assets than the ones it borrowed. The loser, as always, is the average citizen who sees his/her dollars in his/her bank accounts and investments slowly and quietly bled of actual value. The scam even works politically - as people see the value of their money fall, some guy like Bernie comes along demanding higher minimum wages.... a completely illusory and circular act of inflationary insanity. Instead of rolling-back the globalism that's been hyper-enriching the ultra-wealthy, and returning good-paying jobs to the economy, these political monsters propose to leave people in low-paying service jobs and give them a short-term illusion of better income by a wage boost that will rapidly be undone by more inflation...
I do not own a car and exclusively use car sharing when I need a car. The reason is money. I now pay less per month than what I used to pay for insurance.
Been doing it now for about 2 years. And I must say that the cars are not dirty at all. The reason is acountability. They know who used the car when.
So if I would get into a car and there is a lot of trash in the car, I just notify the company and they will make a note of it. If I see it before I get in the car, I do not open the car and could inform them right away. If the same person does it again, another user will notify the company. When you abuse the cars, you will get banned, so no more car for you.
It is not that you just walk up to the car with a pre-paid card and drive around. You need to subscribe.
I must say, it just works and the cars are cleaner and newer that what I used to drive myself and better maintained for sure. I use http://www.cambio.be/cms/carsh...
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Depends. I think people will buy fewer cars or perhaps different cars. You may still want to buy the car for your daily commute, but it'll be just that: a daily driver. Not a truck for when you need to haul stuff every so often, or a large sedan for the family holidays; for those rare eventualities you'll just rent something. And that second car that the wife uses twice a week for shopping? Better just rent that too.
There will still be reasons for people to want ownership of their car. For one, you can leave your stuff in it. Or perhaps you just prefer a particular model, like a convertible (those will be gone from the rental lot as soon as the weather turns nice).
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I there nothing we can't blame him for?
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 $30k you cited.
Looking at some other prices, the average price of a car were under 4000$ in 1969, so I'm going to say something is up with the M-B price.
Either they meant some other figure(mistyped 1300?), they weren't selling a low-end car(I suppose it's possible, I don't know their line-ups), or there was some error in converting money(maybe the number was in DM or something?).
That's the problem with using other people's stories, you don't know how much they get wrong. I was just talking today, somebody kept trying to tell me Chicago would have 3,000 homicides this year. I pointed out to them that they were in error, as their homicide rate was dropping like everybody else's, but I had to do some searching to figure out that MAYBE they were talking about shootings.
This is how innovation happens. You may be too young to remember it, but I remember when cellphones were a luxury item that only came equipped in upmarket cars. They were way too big and expensive for an ordinary person to want, or afford. Then both the size and the price came steadily down.
Before that, it was PCs. You know what a basic PC retailed for in 1982? Over $1500, which is to say almost $5000 in today's money. Then the price came down.
The first of anything is way too expensive for the Ordinary Person. Then it gets cheaper.
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.
When I bought my last new car three years ago, I financed the whole thing at 1% for five years. I have better places to have my money work for me, if even modestly, than sinking it all into a depreciating item (and before you get your knickers in a bunch, my last car lasted fourteen years and 290k miles). For this reason, I detest notes like the one above - it implies you'd be stupid to finance a new car at an extended rate under any and all circumstances when in fact the unwashed masses may have an ounce of financial acumen unanticipated by the authors.
Some of the most financially aware individuals I have ever met have been successful owner-operators of semi-trucks, and independent farmers...
Plenty of people also get by walking several miles in the sun/rain/snow/dark.
Sometimes people simply don't have a choice.
A current day non-smart no-nonsense car would've been exorbitantly expensive 20 years ago. Like everything else, costs will go down as more and more autonomous vehicles are created.
You and every moron that uses car sharing is a massive moron.
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?
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 the long run. And if they do get someone in the family to pick them up and drop them off that's time spent for them. Maybe if all the members of the household are driving age and license holders it's not such a big deal and small kids you can't just have running around by themselves but it's still many.
Personally I'm not sure how high the cost is going to be long-term anyway, sure there's sensors but ours aren't that fantastic. The rest is figuring out what the heck any of it means, but that's mainly a software challenge. If they can make a car that drives "correct" - or at least correct-ish enough and the only fault is a lack of sensor and processing capability that's a huge step. And that software you'll write once and can put in a billion cars, that's a lot of volume to spread it across. LIDAR is expensive today but we got may companies claiming it can be done much cheaper, there's optical + radar and really many possible variations and combinations for different needs, ranges and conditions. Pretty sure some of those will work out at reasonable cost.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So basically, cars are now cheaper than what they used to be and most people can't afford them anymore. Great times we're living in.
Like when Tesla came out with its "affordable" car at $35,000, I lost my lunch. In my opinion, for the average American, affordable is closer to $10,000-$15,000.
Though, with all the money that's been printed over the past few years, minimum wage should be $50/hour now.
typical car is 33k? that's absurd... either that or people are buying more than they need. great 5 door cars that are comfortable are around 20k... so this "study" is simply bullshit.
Aye, 33 years old and never driven a car in my life. I see them as a huge waste of money and the best way to get lazy. Over my short life I've notice many people get really offended when you suggest walking for 20 mins to get somewhere.
I think they'll catch on because I want one, and I assume most other people have similar wants to me.
how about housing. I'm my area (Greater Vancouver) in the last 6 months houses that were selling 468-600K are up to 600-850K. In the last two weeks basically one in every third house in about 5 block radius around me has gone up for sale. This happened on a Sunday, we were just leaving for a hike when were like WTF? for sales signs everywhere. These houses aren't new these are later 60 and early 70's houses.
We were actually going to buy a house in my area (Renting atm and my rent is cheaper than most people mortgages) but now with the extra $150K+ per house no way am buying one and paying for it till I'm 90. So we looked at another city about 1.5 hours from us. I'd have to drive 30Min longer to my shop and the wife would have to get another job in that town but we can get a nice mid 90's built house for $280-340K and with 50K down have our mortgage would be $1300 per month instead of $2500+
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
... 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 till the robot-controlled electric version is out.
Bottom line: ... Maybe I'm not asking enough salary?
I honestly don't know how people can afford the cars they're driving and standing in traffic jams with here in Germany. It's somehow beyond me.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
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.
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.
You only use your bed for 8 hours better to just rent that. You don't occupy your home or apartment when you're at work. Better to just you a home share. 90% of the time I'm not using my phone better to use a communal phones.
Everyone that says people won't own cars in the future is a massive moron.
The best comparison is by comparing wages. Circa 1970 entry level job wages where in the sub $1 range. Certainly much less than 20% or current minimum wages.
To summarize.... average buying power is probably at least doubled, that gets you a car that has far lower operating costs, is much safer, has many more amenities, and lasts anywhere from 2-5 times as long.
Fortunately your friendly car sales man has already sprayed that new car smell on the model you're interested in. You can trust him not because he says so, but because your nose says so. And you know your nose is never wrong.
A lot of the new cars look the same to me. All pill shaped ovals on wheels. The price doesn't help either when I've been looking around at cars recently. I've found myself going to classic car sites looking for 60's, 70's, and 80's cars all fixed up like new. I miss the simplicity of hand crank windows.
If you're going that route, you need to consider the unavoidable expenses, and subtract that from the minimum wage. (Apartment rental around here has gone up a LOT more than car prices. So have some food prices, though I tend to buy unusual items, so I don't know about in general.) Additionally you need to consider the number of hours a typical worker at the modal salary is allowed to work/week by his employer. And the fraction of the population unemployed at all. Etc.
I think you'll find that the modal disposable income in the quartile of the population containing the modal wage has not gone up by even approximately 20%, and may well have decreased. This will vary by region calculated for, of course. But fewer people used to be stuck in minimum wage jobs, and the ones that were used to be able to work 40 hours/week.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Aye, I'm a pathetic loser and never driven a car in my life.
Fixed that for you.
This only works if the car can drive w/o occupants, so that it can arrive at the desired location. And that isn't going to happen for a long long time. We can't even automate trains like that yet, and they are "on rails" in dedicated right of ways and only move in one basic axis (fwd/back). Seriously people, get a grip.
Everyone that says people won't own cars in the future is a massive moron.
Anonymous Coward Moron:
Will *some* people still own cars in the future? Yes, of course.
Will *many fewer* people own cars? Yes. Particularly in urban areas. Why would you bother owning one if it's cheaper, easier and faster to get from A to B using a car share?
You're already seeing growth in this year over year in cities with Car2Go.
PS Moron.
If you don't have or can get the money to actually buy the thing in the first place, it doesn't matter if it saves you money in the long run. This is part reason why it tends to cost more to be poor than to be rich.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
as you used to. Yes, it is technically "thousands" but 3 or 4 thousand on a 6 year note is $60/month. Plus there's been a _lot_ of problems with modern cars as they struggle to meet the fuel & emissions standards. Looks at VW. Or Nissan's problems with CVT transmissions. Or Toyota's break issues (which turned out to be real). Having an active warranty is nice. Yeah, there are recalls, but it can be a pain to deal with if you're not the original owner. 2 or 3 extra years of not dealing with any of that is worth $60. Especially if you get stuck with a $3000 repair. You're gambling that you won't (something Americans seem to do a lot :(... )
/. community prefers not to acknowledge them...
Also if you run your own business or you're in sales you need a new car to show off. Appearances matter for a lot of people. There are practical consequences for weak appearances even if the
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm under 60. I had less than no say in America's transportation system and infrastructure.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Plenty of people in cities also have bed bugs and other infestations. Call me a hypochondriac but I am proud adherent of the bus pants methodology of utilizing public transportation when I don't drive.
That's complete horseshit and you're lying to push a political agenda. All of this safety stuff? It makes cars more expensive to buy, operate and repair. Operational costs are going up because the more safety and emissions in the car, the heavier it is, less efficient it is, and the more fuel you burn. As complex emissions controls have been pushed by the safety requirements, simple mechanical systems have been replaced with complex computer systems, driving up repair costs.
1976 Accord 2000 lbs
2016 Accord 3605 lbs
Thing is, that the 1976 Accord was cheap, the new one? Sorry, you can no longer afford an entry level car on the salary of the average college graduate.
Your money has less buying power than it used to, we can get $6 toasters now but if your son needs an operation it's $100,000. A house is ridiculously expensive but you can get a meal at a fast food place for $2.
Certain goods haven't gotten more expensive, it's that other goods have slowly gotten cheaper. Cheap chinese goods, or goods which were over priced to begin with.
Globalism is causing issues, inflation is causing issues. You need only look at the 60s and 70s families with 1 breadwinner for the household yet a reasonable house and vehicle was purchased with that income, maybe a TV and what have you.
The median age of a new car buyer for a Toyota is 50 years old. Google it.
Because I have to drive too much every day. Having a self-driving car that lets me sleep or do something interesting instead of driving myself up and down 680 for the 3000th time would effectively give me hundreds of extra hours in a year.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Plenty of people in cities get by on taxis and car-share, self driving cars will expand that to suburban areas.
Plenty of people in cities get by on public transport, and it's generally quicker in a lot of major cities.
you will find that many dealerships do the same.
Only there are precious few protections for the consumer.
So when your used car breaks down catastrophically in a couple of months, it's "Oh, we must have missed that!" and when you try to use your warranty to cover it, it's excluded on one of 57 different technicalities, with maximum coverage for that particular type of repair that only covers a fraction of the typical cost, all spelled out in tiny print in a massive rulebook of which you do not actually get a copy when you purchase your vehicle and your "warranty."
And even if you manage to find something that is covered, and want to get your fractional pittance, you still have to pay out of pocket yourself for the repairs, then submit the receipt to the third-party corporation that provides the "warranty," who will scour your receipt for more technicalities on which to exclude your claim, and if they can't, will ultimately send you your fractional pittance in 8-12 months and after several letters from your attorney.
In short, U.S. "dealer checks" and "warranties" are worth less than lavatory tissue, which is why every reputable U.S. publication strongly advises used car buyers to pay to have their own favorite mechanic go over the vehicle (at a cost of $50-$200) before buying. So you can easily burn up $2k or more having cars vetted by a mechanic before you find one that he or she will actually tell you is a reasonable bet. Yet all of them are happily checked, warranted, etc.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
The irony is that in actual costs, not book-cooking it costs between $2k and $8k to make most cars. The rest is sucked up in monopolistic dealerships, and book padding back at the major manufacturer. About a third of the sticker price goes to the dealer: some to the sales person and the remaining to the dealership. The remainder goes to the manufacturer, who claims it is the cost of production, but it is not.
For most folks, the reason they pay the big bucks, discounting ego (eg Mercedes CLA, BMW 320i) is for a warranty. This is a promise that if it breaks, someone else will fix it, on an open ended contract. This is the warranty premium, and what sells most new cars. (I"m sick of my POS whatever, I was late again, I NEED A NEW CAR). Interestingly, repair costs are set up specifically to be just a bit more than car payments when the car begins to age...at dealer prices.... Now, in reality, it isn't that simple, but you need 99% uptime to get to work, and it plays into that. If you can afford two cheaper cars, you don't need that 100 % uptime from one, and it can be cheaper. You need space, so city dwellers can't do this. If you can do some work on the car yourself, or have basic knowledge such that you can discuss reasonably with a service tech, you can buy used pretty safely. If you know where the gas goes and the key goes, and the "check engine" (yup, still there) light scares you and results in random $500 bills, then you can't buy used. I'm driving a $50k car (new) that I bought used for $16k. I did $2500 in catch up work and this includes an alternator which puked 15k miles after I got the car. Most folks think I'm driving a $50k car, but as I have another car, and I DIY most work that does not need a lift, I can afford to drive a used car. Mileage is a factor. Warranty is because they know how much folks drive, so 3 yrs/36k means I'm out of warranty early year #2. It is brief warm feeling, like a towel out of the dryer....so new, for me, isn't equal to warranty. You can do a LOT of repair work for the "warranty premium, even a whole engine in most cases". Again, this only works if you have some space, and understand the mechanics. Otherwise, they are awfully good at separation of you and money, aren't they ?
Go die in a fiery car crash then, and improve the gene pool, stupid.
Plenty of people in cities get by on taxis and car-share, self driving cars will expand that to suburban areas.
Plenty of people in cities get by on public transport, and it's generally quicker in a lot of major cities.
Sure public transit is good for everyday trips, but still it's nice to have access to a car (even within the city) to take you point-to-point instead of waiting on transit and possibly adding blocks of walking to your journey. Things like getting taking your date cross-town from a restaurant to her friend's party on a rainy night, taking the dog to the vet when he injured his food and can't walk, going on a weekend camping trip out of town, etc.
These are the times when it's nice to have access to a car, but you don't neccessarily need your own car - take Uber or a taxi when you're in town, use carshare or a car rental company when you want to get out of town - take the car-share 4WD SUV when you're going camping, take the convertible when you're driving down the coast to a B&B with your partner, rent a minivan when you're taking the family for a week long road trip. When you don't have to own a car, you have a lot more flexibility in what kind of car you get when you *do* need one.
This is exactly why automated cars will take a long time to have enough mass adoption to save a significant amount of lives.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Except when you end up with another problem part - the turbo. When it does work, you have the issue of increased fuel costs vs your turboless V6. When it doesn't work, you have dead weight that impedes the engine.
Displacement and cylinders will always beat air-based imitations.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The number of people in the US who can get to work by train just as well as a car is miniscule. Outside of NYC, basically nobody _chooses_ to take public transit. FWIW, I've lived in DC (DC and Arlington), Chicago, and currently in San Francisco. I take the bus everyday to work, but the moment I get a pay raise I'll be driving into work because it takes an hour each way to get from the Outer Richmond to downtown; roughly the same amount of time as it would take to commute to San Jose every day. It's ridiculous.
Public transit in the United States sucks. I wish it were better, like in London, Madrid, Shanghai, Singapore, Seoul, etc, etc, etc (just a few of the subways I've ridden). But it just downright sucks, and it's not going to get any better. What little rail still being built is mostly above ground and at grade, which is worse than a bus.
Yes, I know there are people in all of those cities who go without a car. I've known some of them. But it's nowhere near as many as in cities with pervasive and _efficient_ mass transit.
Self-driving cars are going destroy to public transit in most American cities. And good riddance. The poor are going to screwed over royally (per usual), but there's no changing that, now.
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.
My roommate is in the same situation as you. She continues to mistake me for a chaffeur, So I keep mistaking her for a gas card. Learn to drive, at least. It's a skill. Having a skill is always better than not having it. I agree with you about walking (or biking).
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
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.
The main reasons people want to own a car is in order to have it available when they want to use it and because its cheaper than a taxi. With self-driving taxis, these advantages are pretty much gone. Real self-driving cars will make car ownership mostly a thing of the past.
0x or or snor perron?!
A big problem is the American problem is trying to keep in style and compare themselves with their neighbors. Bigger home, nicer car... It is like we went to America to escape Europian class structure only to not let go of the feeling you are not worthy so you need to compensate, because everyone want to be a noble.
This had been a problem for a long time Americans are rich outdoor and poor inside. This makes us feel that we are somehow achieving less than most others.
What needs to be done which is hard is change the culture towards people driving more affordable card and using public transportation without feeling like they had lost in life.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Also, just because someone finances a car, especially in these low interest rate times, doesn't mean they couldn't afford it. It usually makes sense to keep a certain amount of your assets liquid, and if someone offers you free liquid money, you take it.
That was my initial thought as well.
But I wonder if there are a few alternative explanations as well:
(a) Mercedes had added cheaper cars to its lineup in 2016, compared to what they offered in 1969. (After all, in the U.S. they do have a long-earned reputation as a luxury brand.)
(b) The ratio of food-costs to car-costs in general has changed significantly over those decades. (I don't think this is likely.)
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.
Which is why people go for used cars, as they always have done. This are news from yesterday. New cars have never been meant for people at or below the median income. They haven't been for a long time. Hell, I alone make 6 figures, and I've only bought a new car once, and that was for my wife and kids (while I still drive the 1998 Honda Civic my wife bought as new). So in our household, we have only bought a new car twice in more than two decades.
And this is not uncommon.
So what makes people think buying a new car is a "new" concern for median-income households? Yes, buying used cars can suck, but that is an indictment in our public transportation systems and not so much on a median-income household purchasing power.
This is truly a first world problem.
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.
Two million Americans are injured and over 30,000 are killed each year... The crash rate without hospitalization is even higher. What do you think happens to their cars?
There are a number of reasons why the crash rate is so much higher in the US than other countries but two big ones are that American road engineering standards are decades behind the rest of the world and traffic regulation's enforcement is largely not yet automated.
Once you actually see the stacks of $100s people think twice about dropping that coin. Typically people end up purchasing a car they can't really afford and usually need two jobs just to make it work.
And with ever increasing safety and CAFE requirements, it is just going to get worse. LKA and auto braking on collision are just 2 examples that are going to add some bucks for safety, and start/stop has been the latest add on for mileage improvement. Unfortunately, as reliable as car manufacturers have become, ever increasing "stuff" is going to end up increasing maint costs as well for the newer stuff.
I probably could have retired if I hadn't wasted so much over the years, and this doesn't include multiple used cars I've owned as well. Much of the turnover was due to moves every few years for work. What you can afford varies wildly based upon your circumstances. Are you supporting family, or single. Saving for kids education, retirement, etc., etc. Someone else made a claim here that you shouldn't spend more than 20% of your annual pay...don't know where he pulled that BS number from but YMMV, mine certainly has.
'78 Trans Am (~$7200) when I was an Airman, making about $5k/yr....Dad covered the first $5k...I could barely afford the gas and insurance, but didn't have other bills.
'82 Ford EXP (~$8k) when I was making $20k at my first real job.
'85 Vette (~$25k) when I was making ~$50k
'86 TBird..(don't recall price) daily driver so I could baby the Vette
'86 Hyundai Presto (Korean version of the Excel $4600 new!...loaded)
'88 Saab 900 (don't recall)
'91 Hyundai Elantra (~$9k)
'94 Intrepid (leased on advice of my attorney as I was getting divorced...can't split what you don't own)
'98 Grand Prix (low $20s)...think I was making in the $70k range then
'99 Grand Prix (ditto)...just met the wife, so we had twin cars.
'03 Infiniti FX45 (~$50k)
'12 Grand Cherokee (~low $40s...loaded) for the wife
'12 Charger SRT8 ($52k)
'13 Rogue (don't recall price...college grad present for daughter)
Just another day in Paradise
Poo Poo, I say good sir, my fanny pants are FAR to pressed to sit in someone ELSES kia!
Back when minimum wage was $2.00/hour, you could by a new car between $2,000 and $3,000 (you could also spend more for a luxury cars and sports cars). Basically the purchase price was 1,000 to 1,500 times the minimum wage. Using today's minimum wage, that would put the price of a new car between $7,250 and $10,875.
Or, if you don't want to use minimum wage as the measure, the median household income of the time was $11,000. So a new car was between 18% and 27% of household income. The last census (2014) shows median household income $53,657, so a new car, compared to the 1970s should be $9,658 and $14,487.
Using either measure, it is readily apparant that wages have not kept up with the cost of new vehicles. The increased price of new vehicles also causes higher prices for used vehicles. So, while cars do last longer and have more features than in the past, they are at the same time less affordable by the majority of households.
That is not to say that cars are overpriced as this could easily be explained as median wages not increases with inflation for common household goods and expenses. That analysis is left to others.
The number of new cars sold in the US is 7-8 millions / year. This compares to 10-11 millions per year in the 1980s (with a smaller population). The number of used cars sold is over currently 40 millions per year. As usual, you may draw your own conclusions. from the data.
Take advantage of the suckers buying a new car every three years and pick up a really nice used car and save your money.
Air-bags, etc, yes, you do need them. But just try getting a car without a multi-thousand dollar stereo system with satellite radio included. Or Internet connection. Or Onstar (or other brands' equivalant). Or a sun-roof that leaks rain in the summer and cold air in the winter, etc, etc, etc.
That is why people can't afford new cars.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
I make more than their median income figure, and I just bought a fully loaded Corolla for less than $18k. Am I supposed to feel bad for people that can't afford a $34k car? Maybe consider a cheaper or used vehicle.
What family would buy a light truck? It makes no sense to include them in the average price.
Tesla Model 3 will be 35K and will be out next year. However, within 4 years, they will have their low-end $20,000 model available. And at that time, you can bet that it will be a equal to cars like Buick or Lincoln, only for 20K and under.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
People typically are bad at math and long-term planning. Specifically, people often foolishly look only at the upfront cost, and ignore the total cost of ownership. A late-model car from a reliable make like Honda or Toyota will run pretty much repair-free for over a decade following only the scheduled services in the owner's manual. Divided out, that turns out to be a better deal than the cheap Dodge you can get for half the upfront price at Uncle Al's Used Car Lot. Replacing the master brake cylinder a year in, the clutch the year after that, the ECU the next year, then the radiator, and so on... it all adds up, as does the lost use of the car while it's in the shop.
And while the average may be $34,000 (Oh, and BTW, is that the mean or the median? It kind of matters in this sort of discussion.), there are some damn fine options in the $20K range, and some very good choices even for under $20K. I bought my 2013 Mazda 3 new for $17.5K, and it's absolutely fantastic. Most MX-5s will come in under $30K, as will most models of the BRZ or FRS. Pretty much the entire Scion lineup (Toyotas by another name and about to be folded into the main brand anyway.) is in the $16-28K range. If outdoors is your thing, Subaru also has the Crosstrek and Impreza wagons running $18-25K. For in-city versatility, Honda's Fit seldom exceeds $20K. And if you want the canonical classics, Civics and Corollas start at $18K and I don't think it's even possible to configure one over $30K.
As for self-driving, I suspect the impetus will come from the insurance companies. If Google's claims about the safety of self-driving cars bears out, they will be dramatically safer than human-driven cars. And that data is easy to gather. Self-drivers are more sensor package and data recorder than they are actually cars, after all. So the only real question there is: "Is Google telling the truth?". The insurance companies will take notice of this. Their actuaries will update their tables. And the premiums will go up on human-driven cars to the point that the total cost of ownership I mentioned above makes them prohibitively expensive, except perhaps for weekend recreational driving under 5000 miles/year.
Imagine all the people...
$6.000.00, yes, that's six grand and these cars are available all over Mexico.
There's really no need to buy brand new. The difference in cost between new and 5 or 6 years old is significant, and a 6 year old car in this day and age is fiber.
So, buying a new car remains the "luxury" that it's always been. Is there a problem with this?
How about the other side of the coin: used cars are that much better, that much cheaper, and that much longer-lasting. The same $34'000 new car, after a five-year lease, is available for $15'000, and still has another 5 years of perfectly good, warrantied life.
Sounds like the average family income can support two perfectly good, previously-enjoyed cars. I don't see the problem.
Of course, with maintenance, gas, insurance, and the purchase price, it'll still cost $8'000 - $10'000 per year for any reasonable car.
You mean like Zipcar and Car2go? Both which have seen miserable stock performance, and in my experience are abject failures. The idea that the American car culture is going to up and vanish with the advent of self driving cars is ludicrous. You are asking for a cultural change, a giving up of the "Freedom of the open road". I have a really hard time seeing the American public embracing it.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Maybe in Europe, but you fail to take the American Car Culture into consideration. It is a strong part of our natural identity. You will need to have a major cultural shift in this country, a shift I don't think the tech minority really understand. The majority of Americans will not give up their cars to let some computer drive them around. It's a part of the puzzle everyone ignores, it's also the part that pretty much insures that these ideas flop.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Who's the moron now?
Since this is not a technical problem (the idea of shared cars has been around a long time), and they have never really taken off. Sure it may work for awhile in certain cities with certain demographics, but on a larger scale these ideas fail. Not because we can't implement them, but because a majority of people won't use them, they will not give up on freedom that car ownership provides.
I don't know about the car culture in Canada, but here in the States it is integral to the modern American experience.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
It is very likely autonomous cars will change the selling model. You lease/rent/pay as you go vs. buy it. Then the operator assumes the complexity.
Airline industry does it and it works... (NOT considering the airport crowd mgmt problem).
"PS Moron"
And you entirely ruined your argument, not that you had a good one to begin with. Car2go growth? Maybe in Seattle, or China, but Car2go and Zip have very little presence in the rest of the country. Total revenue for Car sharing in the US 400 million. compare that to the 28 Billion for traditional car rental. Those numbers really show your "growth". The people who would use the car sharing are now using Uber and Lyft, so I bet you will see what little growth the car sharing industry has seen dissipate
"You're already seeing growth in this year over year in cities with Car2Go."
Comments like these require proof, because the only place Car2go is seeing major growth is in China.
Car2go now only is in 9 US cities after dropping Miami, Arlington, LA, and Eugene. While they may be the largest car sharing service, they are the largest of a small, and shrinking market. (a million registered members is nothing for an international company).
So who really is the moron here?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
The exact reason why they won't catch on in the States. Car ownership here in the US is a cultural thing and that is not going away anytime soon. Car sharing companies don't really do well here. Americans like their cars.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Are you kidding me? We bought a brand new Subaru Forester with good amenities (no SATNAV or heated seats) for under $25k. This report is bullshit unless by 'affordable' they mean the top of the line models being affordable.
Idiots.
If you live in a city whose bus drivers have nights, Sundays, and major holidays off (source: fwcitilink.com), and your boss assigns you hours on Sundays, is car sharing practical to use every Sunday to commute to work?
Goods transport, people transport, older kids, elderly and others with medical conditions that prevent them from holding a license, I think.
That and $5,000 invoice from a driving school to get the required 100+ hours of verifiable supervised driving practice that some states require of learners (source). Not everybody has parents who both drive and live nearby.
They can afford budget new cars or 2nd hand cars. Why should everyone be able to afford a new car? That's what the used car trade is for.
Why would anyone be proud to be a hypochondriac?
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.
A car helps you be productive because it helps you get to and from work. And if it's your first job during or out of high school, or sometimes even out of college, you lack wealth to acquire it without financing, and you lack experience to make your labor attractive to legitimate work-from-home opportunities. For many, the bus isn't an acceptable substitute because bus drives have nights and Sundays off. Bosses have threatened to lay employees off unless the employee agrees to fill in a night or Sunday shift.
And if you do have wealth, you probably have good enough credit to buy a car at an interest rate lower than the inverse P/E ratio of the company that makes it. This means your money can be productive. For example, Ford Motor Company (NYSE: F) has a price to earnings ratio in the neighborhood of 6.6 (source), for an expected APY of 100 / 6.6 = 15%. So if you can finance a Ford vehicle for less than 15% APR, then you can buy a car, put everything but the down payment into a long position in F, sell a few shares every year to make the car payments, and still come out ahead because your dividends will exceed the interest.
My wife is second hand, why should it be a problem with a car?
My father-in-law just gives me his old car whenever he wants an upgrade. Problem solved!
Unfortunately, holding on to a new car for more than 6 years stops helping much
I have to disagree with that. The "cost" of driving may shift but actually is cheaper with older cars. I own a 1992 Jeep and I have been driving is for about 12 years. I bought it used and paid CASH for it. No loan to pay off and no interest to pay. Now it has about 250,000 miles on it. Sure every year I do have to repair and replace things but my annual cost for the this is around $1000 to $1400 a year. Compare that to the $6,000 to $8,000 annual payments costs the article is talking about. Instead of car payments I just have the cost of keeping it in good shape which is far less than making car payments and shelling out money to the banks. Also my insurance is cheaper.
I sold my Aston Martin Vantage about a year ago. On nice days, I still ride my new Ducati 1299 Panigale. On the remaining days, I use ride-sharing services to get around the city.
I've found ride-sharing services to be incredibly convenient. I can order up cars for my entire week and ensure a driver will be available to pick me up. If someone is driving me, I focus on composing emails or getting some work done during my commute. I also do not have to worry at all about the headaches of traffic and can completely tune it out. I also have the option of driving myself when using some of these services. That can be handy if I want to make multiple quick stops.
In short, I've traded the headache of sitting through traffic, worrying about my car getting scratched up or dinged, and so forth, for an incredibly relaxing commute. I fail to see how such factors make me a moron.
As with most things, It Depends. Have the runout checked when replacing pads - it's possible that nothing extra is needed.
Some (mostly older) cars have enough "meat" on the rotors that they can be resurfaced at least once. Many newer cars don't because everything is made as light as possible. RTF(Service)M. My Protege5's rotors cleaned up quite nicely, though I do expect to have to replace them the next time it needs pads. The old Camry, though, needed new ones when the 2nd pad time came (fronts only, around 80K miles, no surfacing needed for the first set of pads at about 40K). Drum brakes on the rear do seem to last forever, as do brakes on most hybrids (regen handles most of the braking).
Then of course there was my Opel many years ago - pads on the front barely lasted 10K, so I got pretty good at throwing in a set of new ones quickly in the carport. With pads that soft, I didn't worry about doing anything to the discs.
Yep: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cp...
There seem to be two points in the car's life where the value "gaps" down: immediately after purchase of a new car, and at about 6 years old. The first gap we all know about, and it's why it's best not to buy new for basic transportation. The second is the point where the typical 5-6 year loan is paid off. Is it perhaps suspicious (dons tinfoil hat) that the "blue book" deliberately cuts the car's trade-in value nearly in half at about 6 years, with only minor adjustments for usage (mileage)? Could it be planned to make you trade in at that point (the car has practically no trade-in value after that point) and get a new car with a new loan, so you can stay in hock forever? Does anybody really know what the "blue book" values (which often seem to be self-fulfilling prophecy) are actually based on?
Since this is not a technical problem (the idea of shared cars has been around a long time), and they have never really taken off.
Yes, but the self-driving aspect certainly gets it closer to the ideal. I can understand being skeptical of how car-sharing services have worked before, but a car that can move autonomously would be a game changer. If you can make them -convenient- (car sharing never was), then people will use them. If the car is just... there when you want it, I think a lot of people will go for that. It may not entirely replace a personal car, but it might replace a number of uses for them.
I'm the root AC. The econo car of today is roughly similar in price to the econo car of yesterday, and it's no longer a 70 MPH coffin. Different markets (like premium or heavy vehicle) might be more or less in line than that. But, the dependable cheapo car which everyone should be able to afford is the roughly the same price, but more dependable, better for the environment and much safer.
If you can make them -convenient- (car sharing never was)
I don't understand this comment. I just checked the app and there are 10 Car2Go vehicles all under a 3 minute walk from where I am right now. If I drive one home I can probably park it outside my house - Certainly within a 1/2 block of my house.
I realize many americans are lazy bastards, but that certainly meets my definition of 'convenient.'
Plenty of people in cities get by on public transport, and it's generally quicker in a lot of major cities.
That depends very much on when and where you are travelling. The practicality of public transport also depends on what you want to take with you.
If you live in the city center of a major city then public transport is good so you rarely need a car. Plus keeping a car in the city center is expensive. For these people Public transport takes the bulk and Taxis and/or car share services cover the minority of journeys where public transport is unsuitable. Obviously poorer people will have more of a bias towards public transport while richer people will be more likely to use the Taxi and car share services where conviniant.
Out in the suburbs public transport coverage is worse, car share services (at least where I live) are practically non-existant and the distances involved make taxi's an expensive option. For many people this shifts the balance towards owning a car. Especially for people who have already paid the upfront costs of starting to drive.
If/when self driving cars are able (both legally and technically) to operate unsupervised I would expect this balance to shift. The driver represents a large propotion of the operating costs of a taxi.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
News flash - cars are going to get more expensive in 2018:
Source: http://www.detroitnews.com/sto...
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.
Comprehensive Insurance isn't going away, or do you think everyone will just pay cash if a tree or something else falls on the car or a bad hail storm comes through? No crashes or medical costs? Do you think bicycles and motorcycles will be outlawed as well? We've already had someone get into a fatal crash using autopilot in a Tesla even.
If you live in the city center of a major city then public transport is good so you rarely need a car.
It also depends on which city you live. I've noticed American cities are mostly designed around suburbs and cars which is a poor design for efficient public transport networks. Europe and Asia tend to have most densely packed, geographically smaller cities that evolved around pedestrian and cycle transport, so it's more conducive to public transport.
If you were to design a city from scratch today, I very much doubt you would build as many roads. Cars simply do not scale in large cities, so the most future proof design would include plenty of public transport options.
That will depend from city to city and situation to situation. In my case it would be as my company would cover the cost. And if they did, it will also be, because of the number of miles I drive the rest of the month and the distance I have to go.
If it is every sunday, reserving a car is also no problem as you can cancel for free if you do it more than 24 hours before. I used it when there were strikes in Belgium.
As everybody is in a different situation, here is what I did:
Before I sold my car I tried it out for 2 months to see if it was any good for me. That way I had a back up plan if it would not be good enough. I did not touch my car during those two months to make a fair test.
At this moment I pay around 50EUR per month on driving. This because I mainly use it only to go shopping once a week and that is what I was using my car for anyway.
Many people use it as a replacement for a second car. They still have a car they use to drive around in all the time.
They say it is cost effective if you don't drive 10.000km per year and don't use it every day. Obviously YMMV (pun intended) and it will differ from country to city to even your street if this is an option, so try it out for a month and if it does not work, you lost perhaps 50EUR. If it works, spend that less per month easily. I am spending around 200EUR less per month.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
American businesses have been driving down wages and salaries for decades by attacking and demonising unions with the help of the GOP and a naive public. Now they find that their potential customers cannot afford to buy their products. Talk about shoft sighted stupidity. If your customers can't buy your products you eventually go out of business. Some states are instituting increased minimum wages, but that doesn't help as it's the decimated middle class that buys products to drive industry. America is on a long slow downhill slide to self propelled poverty and irrelevancy courtesy of industry and GOP.
My wife and I are beating the game by driving a 2000 pickup truck and a 2002 Sedan - both domestic. We fix them when they break and keep trucking and our combined expenses to run them (all-inclusive including fuel, etc.) are under $10,000.00. AAA says $8,558.00 or something is the annual average to drive one vehicle so we are winning. We paid cash for both cars - bought them used. Got the pickup for $5300 (with 115k on it) and the Sedan for $4000.00 with only 88k on it. You can win, just save up a few bucks and be willing to drive something that is not so "sexy".
I don't understand this comment. I just checked the app and there are 10 Car2Go vehicles all under a 3 minute walk from where I am right now
Car2Go is an interesting idea, but it's not available in many cities yet. This seems more like more convenient car rental rather than "car sharing."
It has always been true that half the people could not afford the more expensive cars. And carriages before that...
Cars are not more expensive now, it is the money that is of less value. The governments have been pushing inflation for generations. You used to be able to buy a loaf of bread for less than a dollar. Go back a bit more and you could get one for a penny. In a way, your dollar these days is only worth about a penny!
People are buying what they need, or alse someone would make what they need and get rich.
But I don't recommend buying the fancy cars with a single computer controlling all functions, they are not safe. I design that kind of stuff and they are not taking proper care with it ... yet.
People like you just drive me nuts. It obviously was pertinent to you. You even dropped a link and all. You obviously care and know this is news. Why the fuck are you bitching? There was absolutely zero persons, programs, or pointy objects that forced you to click the link to the story. Furthermore, there were again ZERO things starting with the letter P that forced you to click the reply to this button. And THIRDLY there were zero p-named things that typed out your whiny words, blockquoted a portion of a post, and then dropped a html link at the end. THEN FINALLY, there were zero persons, programs, preachers, patrons, porcupines, or penguins that CLICKED THE GOD DAMNED SUBMIT BUTTON! Go back to Facebook, Ken.
Europe and Asia tend to have most densely packed, geographically smaller cities that evolved around pedestrian and cycle transport, so it's more conducive to public transport but god awful for the people trying to live in them.
Fixed that for you.
Toyota is virtually maintenance free;
https://news.ycombinator.com/i...
Casteism
Car companies do not want to Buy a new car. They want you to Lease.
The price of a new car is not real. It is simply an inflated price the manufacturer uses to set up your lease payments. And the lease is not designed to allow you to own the car. The high sticker price ensures that when your lease is up that they will convince you to start a new lease on a new car rather than pay the remainder of the inflated debt.
The car companies are designed to extract as much as you can afford or more on a monthly basis and provide you with nothing to show for it in the end. Their goal is to extract as much as they can squeeze out of your disposable income and renegotiate this every couple of years. So you end up in an endless cycle of paying money to "borrow" their cars.
Smart people buy used cars that highly depreciated from the suckers who bought new.