4 ms·

$2000 is a prohibitively expensive amount for a nontrivial number of people. Not to mention that doesn’t take into account price of gas, parking, maintenance (f

$2000 is a prohibitively expensive amount for a nontrivial number of people. Not to mention that doesn’t take into account price of gas, parking, maintenance (for which a $2000 car will most likely need more of than a brand new car), registration, insurance... More than 10% of Americans live below the federal poverty line (individual income of <$12k, family of 4 income less than <$26k) https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759512938/u-s-census-bureau-reports-poverty-rate-down-but-millions-still-poor https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759512938/u-s-census-bureau-r...

mehrdadn 6y ago
What exactly are you arguing against here? So a $2k car is not affordable by the 10% of the population below the federal poverty line... therefore it's an upper middle-class luxury?
- undersuit 6y ago
  You're arguing a car isn't a class line in the United States, and you've completely forgotten the ~8 of adult Americans who don't have a car at all for transportation. Maybe it's a class thing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > You're arguing a car isn't a class line in the United States, and you've completely forgotten the ~8 of adult Americans who don't have a car at all for transportation. Maybe it's a class thing. Or maybe it isn't. No, I haven't "forgotten" them. When some 90% of American households have access to a car, that's a pretty darn clear signal cars aren't a class luxury. It just means those in the lowest economic classes can't afford them, just like they have trouble affording so many other things. You do realize for comparison some 36 million people are on food stamps? Meaning they need assistance to even put food on the table? That doesn't make food a "class thing" in any meaningful way. And neither is a car. Especially not an "upper middle-class luxury".
    - undersuit 6y ago
      So because people get food, an essential resource to stay alive, a car isn't a class issue?

mehrdadn 6y ago

What exactly are you arguing against here? So a $2k car is not affordable by the 10% of the population below the federal poverty line... therefore it's an upper middle-class luxury?

undersuit 6y ago
You're arguing a car isn't a class line in the United States, and you've completely forgotten the ~8 of adult Americans who don't have a car at all for transportation. Maybe it's a class thing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > You're arguing a car isn't a class line in the United States, and you've completely forgotten the ~8 of adult Americans who don't have a car at all for transportation. Maybe it's a class thing. Or maybe it isn't. No, I haven't "forgotten" them. When some 90% of American households have access to a car, that's a pretty darn clear signal cars aren't a class luxury. It just means those in the lowest economic classes can't afford them, just like they have trouble affording so many other things. You do realize for comparison some 36 million people are on food stamps? Meaning they need assistance to even put food on the table? That doesn't make food a "class thing" in any meaningful way. And neither is a car. Especially not an "upper middle-class luxury".
  - undersuit 6y ago
    So because people get food, an essential resource to stay alive, a car isn't a class issue?