4 ms·

Many people say this. I'm sure you can invent examples where a cheap car is indeed a false economy. But I'm pretty sure that, on average, total money spend on c

by iguy 8y ago

Many people say this. I'm sure you can invent examples where a cheap car is indeed a false economy. But I'm pretty sure that, on average, total money spend on car per annum will be strictly increasing with income. It would be interesting to have some actual data. An easy thing would be to look across countries, are there any cases where a poorer country has a larger (in absolute terms!) motor sector than a richer one? I would be surprised, this is certainly not the pattern.

dorchadas 8y ago
There's two problems with this. (1) It does no good to look at just pure money spent. You need to look at it in terms of percentage spent per year. And I'd say it does easily favor the rich, especially since they can often get loans and get a better deal on interest rates that poor people often can't. (2) It does no good to compare across countries either. The necessity of a car is a distinctly American thing. In many countries you can get by without one thanks to public transportation or walking. America's poorest often don't have either of those luxuries, thus it'd be impossible to compare to poorer countries. That said, I do know it effects clothes pretty heavily. I've bought two pairs of cheap tennis shoes this year. Now, I knew they were cheap and that they likely wouldn't last long and I didn't need them to, which is why I went ahead and got them. But for some that's all they can afford. If they go through three pairs, they've spent around $60-70, which is enough for one good pair that would last over a year. But they often don't have that money to drop on one good pair, and thus have to keep buying cheap ones. It's even more prevelant with boots, because they're more expensive. And it happens with clothes too, especially when people have to wear the same thing to work regularly, and thus often wear the same two or three pairs of jeans. They wear out quicker, and if they're buying cheaper material, it happens faster too.
- iguy 8y ago
  Do you hold that people earning (say) 30k actually spend more dollars on clothing than people earning 50k, per annum? (In similar job types, similar area, etc.) This is the claim of the boot story, and I don't buy it. Although it would be nice to have data. I guess the technical term is something like "inferior good", and I thought such things were rare beasts, not such broad categories as clothing. (Perhaps things like fake-leather belts would qualify). Do they spend a larger proportion of their income on clothing? This could go either way, I think, rent hurts. But that's a different question to the boot one: If they spend more only in proportion, not in dollars, then they spend the same or less!

by iguy 8y ago

dorchadas 8y ago

There's two problems with this. (1) It does no good to look at just pure money spent. You need to look at it in terms of percentage spent per year. And I'd say it does easily favor the rich, especially since they can often get loans and get a better deal on interest rates that poor people often can't. (2) It does no good to compare across countries either. The necessity of a car is a distinctly American thing. In many countries you can get by without one thanks to public transportation or walking. America's poorest often don't have either of those luxuries, thus it'd be impossible to compare to poorer countries. That said, I do know it effects clothes pretty heavily. I've bought two pairs of cheap tennis shoes this year. Now, I knew they were cheap and that they likely wouldn't last long and I didn't need them to, which is why I went ahead and got them. But for some that's all they can afford. If they go through three pairs, they've spent around $60-70, which is enough for one good pair that would last over a year. But they often don't have that money to drop on one good pair, and thus have to keep buying cheap ones. It's even more prevelant with boots, because they're more expensive. And it happens with clothes too, especially when people have to wear the same thing to work regularly, and thus often wear the same two or three pairs of jeans. They wear out quicker, and if they're buying cheaper material, it happens faster too.

iguy 8y ago
Do you hold that people earning (say) 30k actually spend more dollars on clothing than people earning 50k, per annum? (In similar job types, similar area, etc.) This is the claim of the boot story, and I don't buy it. Although it would be nice to have data. I guess the technical term is something like "inferior good", and I thought such things were rare beasts, not such broad categories as clothing. (Perhaps things like fake-leather belts would qualify). Do they spend a larger proportion of their income on clothing? This could go either way, I think, rent hurts. But that's a different question to the boot one: If they spend more only in proportion, not in dollars, then they spend the same or less!