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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
You should never spend more than 20% of you annual income on a car.
Where did that rule come from?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
Um, no. Unless your car is a complete shitbox to start with, or you drive ~100 miles per day every day, keeping it for 10-15 years will not cost you more than replacing it every six years. Depreciation is an accounting trick that only really works in aggregate. If your car is still running in six years time, keep it. You will save the cost of a new car. The fact that yours is worth zero on paper means absolutely nothing if it still works the way it's supposed to.
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.
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. 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 to find.
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.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj