4 ms·
In that case, it seems like there is a social problem with a system that creates "subprime borrowers" that both need a car to survive, and can only get one unde
by arrosenberg 6y ago
In that case, it seems like there is a social problem with a system that creates "subprime borrowers" that both need a car to survive, and can only get one under feudal conditions.
- oh_sigh 6y agoIt can be a social problem, it can also be an individual problem. A lot of people want a nicer car than they can afford. I make well into 6 figures as a programmer, and drive a year 2000 Civic which cost me ~4 days of my salary. A friend of mine makes 40k/yr as a bike mechanic and drives a 2017 Civic and it cost him ~6 months of his salary. In a more rational world our car ownership would be swapped.
- Xcelerate 6y agoIsn’t there also a pretty big difference in crash safety though between the 2000 and 2017 Civic? I’d rather work a few more days for a higher chance of surviving a crash.
- throwawayboise 6y agoSomewhat, but by 2000 cars were pretty safe. At least, some were. You could look for brands that were leading the way on safety, such as Mercedes or Volvo.
- arrosenberg 6y agoNot really an individual problem, even then. Usury is one of the most legislated-on topics in history, and allowing solutions like the one described in the article is a societal choice. Your anecdote aside, most of the people borrowing on these terms are doing it out of necessity, and the ones who aren't should be told No.