22 ms·

New cars are just for rich people now

64 points by GalenErso 3y ago

egman_ekki 3y ago
People should check car prices in Denmark and then they wouldn’t feel so bad about prices in the US. Kia Rio starting at $32k, with median salary 15% lower than the US.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ftxbro 3y ago
> "When you do the math on what that means to a median household, it is basically pricing the median completely out of the new vehicle market" Some years ago, 'above median' didn't count as 'rich'. There were 'the masses' maybe like 90% then a bourgeoisie maybe the next ones above that, then less than 1% aristocracy and nobles. Also social class wasn't determined solely by net worth or income. Maybe we will go back to that kind of situation where the median will be considered squarely in 'the masses' class and nowhere near 'rich'.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  I dunno. Ford saw the automobile as being revolutionary only if the person who makes the automobile is able to afford the automobile. (Funny, nobody applies this one to child care.)
  - ftxbro 3y ago
    Yes this is an excellent example! When I said 'some years ago' I pretty much meant pre-USA. The Ford story is a great example of that American socio-economic differences from the previous 90/9/1 kind of distribution they had before that in England or other places. EDIT: Also, people today would be calling Ford as literally communist
    - eesmith 3y ago
      What are you talking about? Ford was about as anticommunist as you could get. He was a strong anti-Semite, a conspiracy theorist who railed against "international Jewry", who paid to print the fabricated 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' in the US. He was absolutely against unions. His private police force used violent opposition against unionization, like the Ford Hunger March and the Battle of the Overpass. And he admired Nazi Germany, and was literally praised by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
      - ftxbro 3y ago
        > What are you talking about? Ford was about as anticommunist as you could get. He was a strong anti-Semite, a conspiracy theorist who railed against "international Jewry", who paid to print the fabricated 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' in the US. they would call him a communist, and also an anti-semite
        eesmith 3y ago
        You haven't said why they would they call him a communist, only asserted that he would. People use "communist" as a generic slur - there's probably people who called Joseph McCarthy a communist too. Is that really the point you're trying to make? That calling someone "communist" has no meaning these days? Otherwise, you can read how in 1923 Ford wrote that communism has failed. In his own words, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.260931/page/n11/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.260931/page/n1... "As soon as [Russia] began to run her factories by committees, they went to rack and ruin; there was more debate than production. .. The fanatics talked the people into starvation. ... Bolshevism is now crying for the brains and experience which it yesterday treated so ruthlessly. All that “reform” did to Russia was to block production. ... The same influence that drove the brains, experience, and ability out of Russia is busily engaged in raising prejudice here." "The reason why Bolshevism did not work, and cannot work, is not economic. It does not matter whether industry is privately managed or socially controlled; it does not matter whether you call the workers’ share “wages” or “dividends”; it does not matter whether you regimentalize the people as to food, clothing, and shelter, or whether you allow them to eat, dress, and live as they like. Those are mere matters of detail. The incapacity of the Bolshevist leaders is indicated by the fuss they made over such details. Bolshevism failed because it was both unnatural and immoral." Shortly afterwards is his philosophy: There can be no greater absurdity and no greater disservice to humanity in general than to insist that all men are equal. Most certainly all men are not equal, and any democratic conception which strives to make men equal is only an effort to block progress. ... It is the larger men who give the leadership to the community and enable the smaller men to live with less effort." He believed him to be one of those larger men, and his methods the way to get smaller men to live with less effort. Which included being able buy his cars. That's not communism, that's the utopian paternalism of American technocracy.
  - chollida1 3y ago
    > Ford saw the automobile as being revolutionary only if the person who makes the automobile is able to make the automobile What is this supposed to mean? I'm not sure if I'm being obtuse or its too profound for me to understand.
    - mbiondi 3y ago
      Maybe he means the person who makes the automobile can afford to buy an automobile?
      - PaulHoule 3y ago
        Fixed typo inserted by spell checker.
    - retrac 3y ago
      Mass production requires mass consumption.
    - stagger87 3y ago
      You can find a better retelling of this elsewhere, but Ford wanted his employees to be able to purchase Ford cars. The story is often used when discussing the fairness of employees wages, or the cost of goods. Auto employees have long been considered part of the middle class. I think the OP was referring to the fact that probably many of the people making these cars can't even afford them nowadays. Given that cars are practically a necessity in most of the US, I don't think that sits right with people.
      - PaulHoule 3y ago
        I dunno, auto workers are better paid than many other workers. My son is still living at our farm but he is starting his first real job. We’ve looked at options for his first car, he is interested in getting an early 1990s Buick or something like that (which can be had under $4000), the kind of used car that I find attractive (a 2010-2020 Honda) is pretty expensive ($13-$18k). We’re leaning towards taking our chances with the bucket.
  - tdba 3y ago
    Interestingly, Ford put his money where his mouth was and dropped the price of the Model T by 5x over the production period. Very hard to imagine today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T#Price_and_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T#Price_and_product... > I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family, but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise. But it will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one – and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces.
    - Spark_Ed 3y ago
      Thanks to Ford being sued by Dodge and setting the precedent that you must operate in the interests of the shareholders and not the customer or your employees.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - xigency 3y ago
        So if a company wants to cater to customers and employees first it needs to be organized as a co-op?
        orwin 3y ago
        Yes. By the way, SWE consultancy co-op are a thing and in my experience pay 15% more than regular consultancy.
        dwaltrip 3y ago
        I believe there is also the option of structuring it as a “public benefit corporation”.
      - frumper 3y ago
        I mean, Ford could have also not sold shares(ownership) in his company then they could do what they want.
  - tehjoker 3y ago
    That doesn't make any sense. This sounds like a play for a more loyal labor force, a larger labor force, or to head off unionization. Ford was an incredible asshole that supported Nazi beliefs. He's wasn't going to just give people money.
    - ROTMetro 3y ago
      Quoting Ford “I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be so low in price that no man will be unable to own one.”. You are looking at it from a take of more people fighting over how big their slice of the pie will be. Instead of splitting up one pie, Ford wanted to make more pies and drive down the price from the efficiencies/economy of scale of making so many pies that everyone got their own. And it worked.
      - PaulHoule 3y ago
        Being “revolutionary” in my use is that “cars change the world”, which they did. If it was all about F1 racing and Bentleys that 1% of people could afford, cars wouldn’t be the force that they are.
      - tehjoker 3y ago
        Yes, driving down the unit cost increases scale and makes things more affordable. That's standard commodity capitalism. Paying your workers more, well what percent of the economy did Henry Ford control? Was it enough to substantially influence mass adoption? In any case, that's coming right out of his own pocket, so he'd have to hope that it's a marketing strategy for... other capitalists? The rest of the population? Otherwise he's just subsidizing cars and eating the costs. Raising the wages directly for labor-related issues makes more sense. You have to remember that rich people like Henry Ford and their estate/descendants (e.g. the Ford Foundation) like to manufacture an image for themselves. It's a nice story if instead of spreading anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, Henry Ford was a great friend to the workers with a nonsensical business concept. "Indeed, as a vocal antisemite, he used his status as one of America's most well-known and trusted business leaders to systematically spread conspiracy theories about Jews. His screeds against Jewish people became so well-known at home and abroad that he is the only American whom Adolf Hitler compliments by name in Mein Kampf. ... But while it dramatically reduced manufacturing time—from 12.5 hours to 93 minutes per car, allowing mass production of up to 10,000 Model T cars a day by 1925—it also made his workers’ jobs more monotonous and unsatisfying. The turnover rate at Ford’s Highland Park, Michigan factory soared to 370 percent. To solve the problem, Ford realized it would be cheaper to raise wages (which at the time were competitive with those at other auto companies) than to continue hiring and training new people at the same pace. So on January 5, 1914, he announced that his company would double wages to $5 a day. The move proved seismic: By prompting wage hikes across the car industry, historians say, it gave American factory workers a crucial boost into the middle class, allowing many to afford their own Model Ts. ... While $5 a day was a generous factory wage at the time, it came with a substantial catch. Technically, workers’ pay remained less than or near $2.50 a day, and the extra money was a bonus they had to earn. The year Ford introduced the bonus, he established a company Sociological Department that sent inspectors to the homes of his employees—at this point, mostly male immigrants—to make sure they were living in a way Ford approved of. Workers were denied the full $5 a day if their wives worked outside the home, if their homes were unclean, if they displayed signs of drinking or gambling, if they took in boarders or if they didn’t contribute to a savings account. " https://www.history.com/news/henry-ford-antisemitism-worker-treatment https://www.history.com/news/henry-ford-antisemitism-worker-... Worth noting that American companies did stuff like this in South America too. The population generally doesn't want to work on the terms of the corporation, so they "terraform" the place until they have a compliant population. Shredding extended family ties, religions, etc. Anything that would interfere with the relationship between a man and his boss.
- ramesh31 3y ago
  >Maybe we will go back to that kind of situation where the median will be considered squarely in 'the masses' class and nowhere near 'rich'. We're already there. American society has stratified into three groups over the last 20 years. There's the 99th percentile elite who have hoarded over half of all overall wealth, the 90th percentile bourgeois (tech workers, lawyers, doctors, etc.) that are able to maintain a modicum of security and prosperity through real wage growth, and then the masses below who are desperately working themselves to death for near starvation wages to service the above two classes, with zero chance of economic mobility.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    ... And yet if you replaced everyone's wages with the average (which is of course the best redistribution can achieve), $97,962, call it $100k whilst that would be an increase of just shy of $30k per year, minus tax on that ($30k), average rent ($30k), transport ($11k), food ($5k), entertainment ($4k) ... which would leave you with $20k. Note that taxes are progressive, so from a $70k wage you get about $10k "free cash" to spend, whilst a $100k wage gives you the above number of about $20k. So it takes A little over 2.5 years' worth of average full-time wages to buy a car in the US. Therefore I disagree, the problem is the average cost of a new car, expressed in labor (2.5 years average full-time labor), much more than the stratification of US society. I would argue 6 months full-time labor would be quite expensive for a car, and for the value of a car to be that, you'd need to make $170k per year, you'd have to be in the top 10%. Only at a 5% income do the cars this article talks about become reasonably priced. And I do mean reasonably priced. Not cheap. Second problem is if you look at where the problem is, profit ("capitalism") ... is not the problem. GM makes $2,150 per car, the average car manufacturer half that, according to Google. Whilst this amount would move the needle a bit, it would certainly not solve the problem. That would make cars affordable for the top 11% of the population (and that's taking the GM figures), which would be just the tiniest of improvement. According to this article: https://carfromjapan.com/article/industry-knowledge/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-car/ https://carfromjapan.com/article/industry-knowledge/how-much... Only raw material cost, labor and (barely) tax would make a decent dent (at least 10%) in the cost of a car. Note: numbers all just Googled and taken at face value, maybe converting to per year (from per month) but no more processing. Obviously big mistakes could have happened, although I think not. I could do better but back of the envelope this should be about correct.
cs702 3y ago
...because of (a) car-price inflation kick-started by pandemic-era supply shocks, and (b) rising interest rates meant to drive down the rate of price inflation. In short, both cars themselves and car-financing are more expensive.
- jen20 3y ago
  “Supply shocks” make it sound like something that could not be anticipated, rather than something that was caused by active incompetence from auto manufacturers at the start of the pandemic.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Even worse, when you dive into the "supply shocks" they were all in all fairly minor and tracked the decrease in demand. A lot of inflation is just companies using the excuse to raise prices and pad the bottom line.
  - jonathankoren 3y ago
    The supply shocks of checks notes three years ago, were certainly unanticipated. But it's been three years now, and prices haven't come down even though supply problems are clearing up. So what's up with prices? Well, to paraphrase the old sportscaster Warner Wolf, let's just go to the quarterly reports! Around the all the industries profits are setting records while they reassure investors that supply chain price increases are immaterial, and have full expectation that customers will simply accept the new prices. https://www.kansascityfed.org/Economic%20Review/documents/9329/EconomicReviewV108N1GloverMustredelRiovonEndeBecker.pdf https://www.kansascityfed.org/Economic%20Review/documents/93...
    - a_subsystem 3y ago
      When the government prints more money, all money loses value.
      - jonathankoren 3y ago
Proven 3y ago
[dead]
skybrian 3y ago
US vehicle sales were up in April [1], [2], so someone is buying them. [1] https://economics.td.com/us-vehicle-sales https://economics.td.com/us-vehicle-sales [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ALTSALES https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ALTSALES
- georgeburdell 3y ago
  There’s a huge backlog right now. An increase in sales tracks an increase in supply. The situation is changing rapidly, anecdotally. My local Toyota deal dropped their dealer markup from $10k to $5k recently
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  Perhaps it's Uber drivers buying them with financing after being forced to drive a sufficiently recent model of vehicle.
- jandrese 3y ago
  A lot of that seems to be fleet sales to rental companies that need to recover from dumping their inventory to stay afloat during the pandemic.
gaudat 3y ago
Just join the motorcycle club...
- stronglikedan 3y ago
  I hear they're constantly making space for new members.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  You don't see a lot of motorcycles with snow tires.
  - germinalphrase 3y ago
    Or toddlers.
splitstud 3y ago
[dead]
bryanlarsen 3y ago
Meanwhile the average price of an EV has dropped $10,000 over the last 12 months. https://insideevs.com/news/666533/average-ev-transaction-prices-down-kelley-blue-book/ https://insideevs.com/news/666533/average-ev-transaction-pri... The average EV price is not yet less than the average internal combustion vehicle price, but it's getting close. TCO for the average EV is almost certainly less than TCO for the average ICE vehicle.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  A correction from an inflated peak all across 2022 when chip shortages starved supply and gas prices surged EV demand. Production for many of the highly sought-after models is only now starting to catch up.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Average EV price in 2020 was $55,000 and average ICE price was $39,000. Average EV price today is $55,000 and average ICE price is $48,000. Both ICE & EV went up about $10K, but the EV price has dropped back and the ICE hasn't.
    - jandrese 3y ago
      Add in the $7500 federal tax credit on that EV and it's a dead heat. Even worse Tesla has a hefty margin on their vehicles right now and could go lower if they really wanted to put the squeeze on traditional automakers. They're also aggressively cost cutting the production. I think Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Volkswagon, etc... are in more trouble than most people realize at the moment. I'm not saying they're going to go out of business next year, but I think they're going to experience significant market shrinkage in the coming decade if they continue down the path they are on.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    I gave up on the idea of a Toyota Corolla Hybrid ($23K) when they said there was an 8 month wait list for one.
Spivak 3y ago
This article is kinda missing it. New vehicles are have always been a luxury for people with money to waste. Unless you get some crazy deal and financing they're never a good financial decision. Well that used to be true, the actual painful thing going on with the car market right now is that in some ridiculous twist of events is that used costs more than new for a lot of vehicles. So yes new cars are more expensive, but used cars are a lot more expensive which hollows out the market that serves the average car buyer.
helen___keller 3y ago
> Back in 2017, if you wanted a car that cost less than $20,000, you had 11 options. Fast forward to March of 2023, and that list had been narrowed to only two. The story here is just “inflation happened”
- prng2021 3y ago
  That’s definitely a big part, but the other major reasons are: 1. Companies are focusing on selling higher profit margin vehicles (more expensive models vs high volume budget models) 2. Companies are focusing on SUVs and trucks since bigger cars are in demand. 3. To a small extent, the focus on inherently more expensive EV models
  - jeffwask 3y ago
    And even in a subgroup like trucks, try buying a basic stripped down pickup like you could 15-20 years ago. Just two doors and an 8 foot bed, a truck... they don't make them anymore. Instead you get one of these giant penis extensions they sell now and call trucks. I don't want 4 doors and leather, it doesn't need to be 8 feet off the ground, it doesn't need to the the size and weight of a semi... I just want a utility vehicle to haul crap between home depot, the dump, and my house. Even what used to be cheap, practical cars are now draped in "optional" bullshit you can't opt out of. And now they want to gate features in my car behind yearly subscriptions, they can fuck right off. I'm not even tempted to buy new. I'm more likely to start buying older I don't want my car getting random software bugs and phoning home to turn of my heated seats.
    - babelthuap 3y ago
      True. I recently inherited a small 2016 truck. It's so stripped down my nephew didn't know what the crank was on the door. He had never seen a manual window crank ha! It does however have one nice feature; bluetooth. I could easily afford a nice car but this little truck is perfect. I don't drive that much so I could see having it the rest of my days barring gasoline is still made. I have no desire for a new car.
- 3y ago
dgoodell 3y ago
They say there are fewer new cars available at $21k today than in 2017. Did they take into account inflation? $21k in Jan 2017 is nearly $26k Jan 2023. There seems to be plenty of new cars that cost that amount.
- acdha 3y ago
  Inflation has gone up in no small part due to cars. They’re one of the biggest factors and people who aren’t buying them or driving heavily have seen far lower rates of inflation.
  - vl 3y ago
    Inflation has gone up due to the reckless money printing, car prices just reflect this fact.
    - mft_ 3y ago
      …and supply chain issues, a war in Europe, and opportunistic corporate profiteering…
- julienfr112 3y ago
  You can adjust for inflation when wages follow it. I wonder for what proportion of the populaton it's the case.
- olyjohn 3y ago
  Wages aren't going up with inflation. So if people couldn't afford a $26k car in 2017, how do you think they can afford it now?
shmatt 3y ago
EVs are the way to go right now. Between the "fleet" loophole for federal credits, state credits, free charging for 2-3 years in some cases, discounted charging at night, manufacturers trying to get rid of the EVs that didn't succeed, no sales tax in some states. It's probably 50% cheaper than an ICE car
- Beached 3y ago
  can you please link an ev that's cheaper than a 26k total cost of ownership over a 10y period(excluding registration) I bought a midsized sedan in 2019, 10y warranty, 17k out the door. I tried to justify the cost of an ev, the cheapest I could find was 32k after credits.
  - okdood64 3y ago
    People don't buy EVs in the US to be economical. That's not a thing yet. It's something for relatively rich people to do as a status symbol or for luxury, since most EVs are fairly luxurious.
    - germinalphrase 3y ago
      Yep. The bottom of the EV market is sparse. Everyone is focusing on the 40k+ market.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    If you do 200,000 miles over those 10 years on a 20mpg car with $5/gallon gas, that's $50K in gas for your $17k car. I assume your numbers are lower, but it's not hard to see how TCO for an EV can be cheaper for many. My electric company just introduced a 2.9c/kWh overnight rate. At 4 miles/kWh, that works out $1450 for 200,000 miles.
  - elcano 3y ago
    With credits, Aisera base model may get close to that number. But you will have to wait for it to be released and there're lots of people in line ahead of you. With that price and their right to repair policy, it is the less risky of the EV startups at this moment. The link goes to the Launch Edition. But you can edit the options to reduce the sticker price to $25,600. However, the All-Wheel option is tempting. Nobody needs a 0-60MPH in 3.5 seconds car, but it's very cool, anyway. https://aptera.us/shop/ https://aptera.us/shop/ Depending on your commuting needs and sun availability in your area you might not need to recharge, ever.
glitchc 3y ago
Safety is a big factor here. The basic trim for all entry level models includes driving aids such as proximity sensors, blind spot warning, backup camera, pre-collision warning. The changes required to integrate those features into the car are diverse and influence design. The net result is that it's not economically feasible to offer them as optional components on higher trims and the base price of all models goes up as a result.
- olyjohn 3y ago
  Meh. I feel like that's a scapegoat that they like to use. Honda packed all that into the Fit (Honda Sensing), and it wasn't a $50,000 car. It was reasonably priced, and an excellent, economical car, with a top safety rating. It's literally the exact same tech used in their top end cars. But what they did was, they killed the Fit in the US. So now the cheapest Honda car you can get is the Civic. Which isn't the small car it used to be. I mean also, how much does this tech cost really? A backup camera? You really gonna claim that cars are unaffordable because of a $20 LCD and $10 camera installed into the bumper? Pre-collision warnings, blind spot monitoring, it's all 20 year old tech now. And it comes in everything.
  - ROTMetro 3y ago
    So your argument on a software development site is that feature creep isn't a thing?
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    >> unaffordable because of a $20 LCD and $10 camera installed into the bumper? Yes. An automotive-grade LCD that will last years, plus a camera that will survive the elements, not mention the unreliable power supplies on which these must operate. Then 10+ feet of cable. Then the dozen little plastic clips to keep that cable secure. Then the manpower to install all of this. Yes. That camera system is more expensive than an injection-molded mirror bolted to the exterior of a car or glued to a windscreen. Multiply that by dozens of similar little things and it does result in more expensive vehicles.
  - germinalphrase 3y ago
naravara 3y ago
This may not be the worst thing honestly, from an environmental perspective. The cars themselves have much longer usable lives now so it's for the best that cars move down to new users instead of needing to build more and more. The downsides, however, is that while the car part of the car is more durable and long-lasting than ever, the software/computer parts of the car are hamstrung by terrible decisions that are sure to age very poorly. This will only get worse when GM decides they want to turn the infotainment screen into a data-harvesting cash cow. Also, this will slow down the transition to EVs. And it ends up saturating the used car market with cars designed with the tastes of show-boating new-car buyers in mind. This screws over people who just want a humble, reliable, practical vehicle instead of an overspecced, oversized, brodozer.
- GalenErso 3y ago
  More expensive cars are better for the environment if people start driving less or stop driving. But it's worse for the environment if people hold on to older cars, because they are less fuel efficient than newer models and release more fine particles in the air.
  - naravara 3y ago
    Is that still true of new cars made in the 2020s? I assume the emissions difference between a 6-10 year old ICE vehicle and a brand new ICE vehicle are probably pretty negligible in light of the footprint required to produce and bring a brand new ICE vehicle to market.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  > This may not be the worst thing honestly, from an environmental perspective. From a purely carbon perspective, new cars are always cleaner than old cars. This is simply due to less wear and tear, and technology improvements.
  - ska 3y ago
    From a systemic point of view, you have to look at carbon impact of production (and end of life). Being a bit more efficient doesn't necessary net out well.
driverdan 3y ago
Seems like this should link to the source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/07/new-car-market-high-interest-rates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/07/new-car-m...
lapcat 3y ago
Honda dropped the lowest priced Civic LX model from their 2023 lineup https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a41612385/2023-honda-civic-pricing/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a41612385/2023-honda-civic... but then backtracked because of customer demand. https://www.motorbiscuit.com/honda-civic-lx-returns-2023-cheapest-honda-civic-back/ https://www.motorbiscuit.com/honda-civic-lx-returns-2023-che...
falcolas 3y ago
If you're purchasing a new vehicle for over $40k, you're getting scammed IMO. There's a lot of great electric and hybrid vehicles with good reliability history. But if you want to look like a _____ in a lifted dodge ram, well, we'll be happy to give you plenty of room on the road to roll your coal.
- notadev 3y ago
  The same can be said about all the ______ driving their status symbol Teslas.
  - falcolas 3y ago
    You're probably right. At least a Tesla can't be modified to roll coal. Yes people do that. Yes, they're absolute pricks. And at least most Teslas don't have their light bars at head height thanks to the lift kits. Nothing quite like the inside of your car being illuminated like it's noon at midnight. But in the end, I'll take a pretentious prick over a malicious prick.
- sp332 3y ago
  Do they actually exist on dealer lots now? For a while there, big cars and pickups were the only ones available. And dealerships were marking up electric cars so high that manufacturers got mad and started threatening them. https://www.motor1.com/news/569524/hyundai-genesis-avoid-dealer-markups/ https://www.motor1.com/news/569524/hyundai-genesis-avoid-dea...
  - falcolas 3y ago
    Vehicles are rolling onto the lots quite a bit right now. Manufacturing is catching up. However, they're rolling right back off the lots too, after 3+ years of shortages.
- a_subsystem 3y ago
  Show me an electric passenger truck that can pull 20,000 pounds.
SkipperCat 3y ago
A quick trip on the Googles: 2023 Nissan Versa - $17,366 2023 Kia Rio - $18,371 2023 Mitsubishi Mirage - $17,140 Just sayin....
- Toutouxc 3y ago
  Yeah, Kia Forte is still sub $20k. That’s a perfectly good car that seats four adults and does 40 MPG (kinda meh in Europe but okay). If you need more car than that for driving to work and buying groceries on the way home, that’s your problem, and I have zero sympathy for you.
ericmay 3y ago
Another blow against the "cars = freedom" mantra we have so wrongly pursued for 50+ years. Now that prices are up and highway maintenance costs are continuing to increase you have no alternative but to open your wallet for the automakers and state departments of roads and highways bureaucrats because guess what, they've legislated your density and your sidewalks and bike lanes away and stopped you from taking the train.
- yamtaddle 3y ago
  When I ran the numbers for "am I, high-paid for my city and only at a medium-distance from the city center by local commuter standards, benefitting from the existence of cars?" over a decade ago, I was at break-even (except that I'd be healthier in a bike-and-walking-centric version of my city). Now? Haha. Hahaha. If I still had to commute, the numbers would surely be way into the "cars are a net-cost" side. And I've got a far better situation for that than most do....
danielvaughn 3y ago
I'm speaking out of ignorance here, since I have no idea what role a microchip plays in modern vehicles, but obviously it's geared towards software components. Assuming that's true, then this whole chip shortage would have been a great time for someone to bring a software-less, low-tech vehicle to the market. I've personally been wanting that as our last vehicle completely shit the bed when the digital transmission encountered an error. Plus I hate touch screens in cars.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  They aren't really what HN people would consider serious microchips. They certainly aren't CPUs. They are lots of basic little chips doing things like regulating an engine parameter or detecting brake pedal forces. One way forwards in reducing the overall demand for chips, the square-inches of silicon needed in a car, is to abandon the approach of scattering little chips all over the vehicle. Instead they could route all the wiring into a centralized control with a powerful CPU running effectively an OS for the entire vehicle. One chip to rule them all. But that just isn't how cars have evolved. History has incrementally made every system componentized and independent.
- galaxytachyon 3y ago
  Even a "low-tech" car is still very complicated to build. Someone who is good enough to make a very good old style car (like Honda or Toyota), isn't financially incentivized to do so anymore. Such a car would not have any features to justify its brand new price over a used one. And the cost to reserve an entire factory line for this model is just too expensive and probably sale won't recover the cost of doing so.
- jandrese 3y ago
  It's generally not possible to meet emissions guidelines without computer control of the engine. Fuel economy also suffers. It's all a tightwire balancing act and the mechanical carburetors of the past are simply too crude to get the job done.
- 6510 3y ago
  The older trains in NL have a computer that reads and displays all kinds of things but it controls nothing. If it doesn't work the train functions just fine. A linux car seems a fun twist.
skrtskrt 3y ago
I think people tend to miss an important aspect of this conversation: Cars as a whole are massively much more reliable for a lot longer than they used to, making used cars way more viable for most people. Even the traditionally less-reliable brands are not exploding at 70k miles like they did 15 or 20 years ago.
Toutouxc 3y ago
From the Washington post article: > Ramirez, 33, and his wife Angelica Castro-Calle really want a new, small SUV with a little space for camping and paddleboarding gear > Johnny Loredo and his wife paid $38,000 for a new Nissan Frontier truck > If they hadn’t had a used Suburban to trade in Yeaah. That could be the issue. People aren’t looking to buy cars anymore, but tanks.
- whycombagator 3y ago
  To be fair, you quoted a couple that traded in a Suburban for a Nissan Frontier. The former is one of the biggest mass produced vehicles you can buy, the Frontier is large but considerably smaller and wouldn’t be out of place on European roads (truck wise). And the first part of the quote describes a small SUV for another couple. Everyone’s definition of “small SUV” will vary, but I’m not sure many would infer tank. Of course, your definition of tank could be very different to mine.
yamtaddle 3y ago
We make like 3-3.5x household median for our city and I can't imagine buying a new car. The prices are batshit crazy. In the late '00s budget cars existed at like $9k new and $20k would get you a pretty damn good vehicle. Now that barely gets you a pretty damn good seven-year-old, used vehicle.
tfandango 3y ago
I feel this a bit. I had a Jeep Grand Cherokee which I loved but decided to have engine problems which apparently is not uncommon. After months of attempted repairs the only option left was a replacement engine that cost more than the value of the car. I considered it but decided against on the advice of a trusted mechanic who says the Jeep replacement engines are problematic and I'd just be inviting more repair cost. Based on how things had gone, I imagined this is correct. I wanted to cheap, small, 2wd pickup to toss rocks and woodchips and the like into for around the town chores which I seem to do a lot of. Does not exist, somewhere along the line everyone decided a pickup truck is some sort of luxury vehicle with all kinds of bells and whistles. While base model trucks are affordable, I cannot find one anywhere, only high-level trims are available. And a used truck with 100k miles is still outrageously expensive and I have shell shock from the Jeep engine blowing up at that milage.
- upon_drumhead 3y ago
  I really wish I could have my old Toyota light truck from the mid 90s again. It was perfect for those light run around town jobs. Who knew that they would be impossible to find 30 years later.
ROTMetro 3y ago
Has anyone looked into knock on effects from the Obama era cash for clunkers that reduced the used car supply by 677,081 cars? I always thought that was going to impact affordability. It removed lower cost vehicles AND their future cannibalization for parts to keep other low cost vehicles on the road. The other change I wonder is just the longevity of cars (which could counteract impact from cash for clunkers). My father used to buy a new car every 3-4 years in the 90s because cars sucked. Cars are more expensive now, but last much longer. My 7 year old car is as good as new still, my dad kept his last car 10 years. Is a product that lasts triple the amount of time for less than triple the old price actually more expensive? No, but it IS now contradictingly unaffordable. It becomes the rich people and shoes trope. Poor people can only afford cheap shoes that wear out more often. When I could afford nice italian boots that lasted longer and were amazingly more comfortable I actually spent less on shoes, but I had to be able to shell out $500 for boots. Now I can only afford $40 for junk. Heck I have shirts from Nordstroms from 10 years ago that I still get complimented on but can't replace and am forced to slowly replace with cheap garbage shirts than wear out in a year because I'm broke and am sad to see myself fall into that trap knowing I am throwing away money to the benefit of looking worse for more $$$ spent over time. All that said having moved down about 10 social economic groups the people I know have 2 daily struggles that keep them in constant anxiety. Housing and keeping their cars running. The system is not going to hold if this keeps up. People can't live in this constant stress and anxiety with no hope and are going to look to some way out. In the past in other countries that's been far left or far right political charlatans. Yet the people up high still expect the status quo to hold and are doing nothing to make things better.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  I don't think the people & shoes trope necessarily applies. You can buy something like a Kia Forte for under $20K and I bet it's more reliable than a $50K BMW.
TradingPlaces 3y ago
It’s because used cars have gotten so good that automakers can’t compete with them at the low end. https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/49663329-trading-places-research/5874921-why-new-cars-are-expensive-in-us https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/49663329-trading-places-r...
tb_technical 3y ago
Yep! But that's ok! Now we can all ride bakfeits, which are perfect for most American's needs and will make us thinner and healthier!

64 points by GalenErso 3y ago

People should check car prices in Denmark and then they wouldn’t feel so bad about prices in the US. Kia Rio starting at $32k, with median salary 15% lower than the US.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ftxbro 3y ago

> "When you do the math on what that means to a median household, it is basically pricing the median completely out of the new vehicle market" Some years ago, 'above median' didn't count as 'rich'. There were 'the masses' maybe like 90% then a bourgeoisie maybe the next ones above that, then less than 1% aristocracy and nobles. Also social class wasn't determined solely by net worth or income. Maybe we will go back to that kind of situation where the median will be considered squarely in 'the masses' class and nowhere near 'rich'.

PaulHoule 3y ago
I dunno. Ford saw the automobile as being revolutionary only if the person who makes the automobile is able to afford the automobile. (Funny, nobody applies this one to child care.)
- ftxbro 3y ago
  Yes this is an excellent example! When I said 'some years ago' I pretty much meant pre-USA. The Ford story is a great example of that American socio-economic differences from the previous 90/9/1 kind of distribution they had before that in England or other places. EDIT: Also, people today would be calling Ford as literally communist
  - eesmith 3y ago
    What are you talking about? Ford was about as anticommunist as you could get. He was a strong anti-Semite, a conspiracy theorist who railed against "international Jewry", who paid to print the fabricated 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' in the US. He was absolutely against unions. His private police force used violent opposition against unionization, like the Ford Hunger March and the Battle of the Overpass. And he admired Nazi Germany, and was literally praised by Hitler in Mein Kampf.
    - ftxbro 3y ago
      > What are you talking about? Ford was about as anticommunist as you could get. He was a strong anti-Semite, a conspiracy theorist who railed against "international Jewry", who paid to print the fabricated 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' in the US. they would call him a communist, and also an anti-semite
      - eesmith 3y ago
        You haven't said why they would they call him a communist, only asserted that he would. People use "communist" as a generic slur - there's probably people who called Joseph McCarthy a communist too. Is that really the point you're trying to make? That calling someone "communist" has no meaning these days? Otherwise, you can read how in 1923 Ford wrote that communism has failed. In his own words, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.260931/page/n11/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.260931/page/n1... "As soon as [Russia] began to run her factories by committees, they went to rack and ruin; there was more debate than production. .. The fanatics talked the people into starvation. ... Bolshevism is now crying for the brains and experience which it yesterday treated so ruthlessly. All that “reform” did to Russia was to block production. ... The same influence that drove the brains, experience, and ability out of Russia is busily engaged in raising prejudice here." "The reason why Bolshevism did not work, and cannot work, is not economic. It does not matter whether industry is privately managed or socially controlled; it does not matter whether you call the workers’ share “wages” or “dividends”; it does not matter whether you regimentalize the people as to food, clothing, and shelter, or whether you allow them to eat, dress, and live as they like. Those are mere matters of detail. The incapacity of the Bolshevist leaders is indicated by the fuss they made over such details. Bolshevism failed because it was both unnatural and immoral." Shortly afterwards is his philosophy: There can be no greater absurdity and no greater disservice to humanity in general than to insist that all men are equal. Most certainly all men are not equal, and any democratic conception which strives to make men equal is only an effort to block progress. ... It is the larger men who give the leadership to the community and enable the smaller men to live with less effort." He believed him to be one of those larger men, and his methods the way to get smaller men to live with less effort. Which included being able buy his cars. That's not communism, that's the utopian paternalism of American technocracy.
- chollida1 3y ago
  > Ford saw the automobile as being revolutionary only if the person who makes the automobile is able to make the automobile What is this supposed to mean? I'm not sure if I'm being obtuse or its too profound for me to understand.
  - mbiondi 3y ago
    Maybe he means the person who makes the automobile can afford to buy an automobile?
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      Fixed typo inserted by spell checker.
  - retrac 3y ago
    Mass production requires mass consumption.
  - stagger87 3y ago
    You can find a better retelling of this elsewhere, but Ford wanted his employees to be able to purchase Ford cars. The story is often used when discussing the fairness of employees wages, or the cost of goods. Auto employees have long been considered part of the middle class. I think the OP was referring to the fact that probably many of the people making these cars can't even afford them nowadays. Given that cars are practically a necessity in most of the US, I don't think that sits right with people.
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      I dunno, auto workers are better paid than many other workers. My son is still living at our farm but he is starting his first real job. We’ve looked at options for his first car, he is interested in getting an early 1990s Buick or something like that (which can be had under $4000), the kind of used car that I find attractive (a 2010-2020 Honda) is pretty expensive ($13-$18k). We’re leaning towards taking our chances with the bucket.
- tdba 3y ago
  Interestingly, Ford put his money where his mouth was and dropped the price of the Model T by 5x over the production period. Very hard to imagine today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T#Price_and_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T#Price_and_product... > I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be large enough for the family, but small enough for the individual to run and care for. It will be constructed of the best materials, by the best men to be hired, after the simplest designs that modern engineering can devise. But it will be so low in price that no man making a good salary will be unable to own one – and enjoy with his family the blessing of hours of pleasure in God's great open spaces.
  - Spark_Ed 3y ago
    Thanks to Ford being sued by Dodge and setting the precedent that you must operate in the interests of the shareholders and not the customer or your employees.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - xigency 3y ago
      So if a company wants to cater to customers and employees first it needs to be organized as a co-op?
      - orwin 3y ago
        Yes. By the way, SWE consultancy co-op are a thing and in my experience pay 15% more than regular consultancy.
      - dwaltrip 3y ago
        I believe there is also the option of structuring it as a “public benefit corporation”.
    - frumper 3y ago
      I mean, Ford could have also not sold shares(ownership) in his company then they could do what they want.
- tehjoker 3y ago
  That doesn't make any sense. This sounds like a play for a more loyal labor force, a larger labor force, or to head off unionization. Ford was an incredible asshole that supported Nazi beliefs. He's wasn't going to just give people money.
  - ROTMetro 3y ago
    Quoting Ford “I will build a motor car for the great multitude. It will be so low in price that no man will be unable to own one.”. You are looking at it from a take of more people fighting over how big their slice of the pie will be. Instead of splitting up one pie, Ford wanted to make more pies and drive down the price from the efficiencies/economy of scale of making so many pies that everyone got their own. And it worked.
    - PaulHoule 3y ago
      Being “revolutionary” in my use is that “cars change the world”, which they did. If it was all about F1 racing and Bentleys that 1% of people could afford, cars wouldn’t be the force that they are.
    - tehjoker 3y ago
      Yes, driving down the unit cost increases scale and makes things more affordable. That's standard commodity capitalism. Paying your workers more, well what percent of the economy did Henry Ford control? Was it enough to substantially influence mass adoption? In any case, that's coming right out of his own pocket, so he'd have to hope that it's a marketing strategy for... other capitalists? The rest of the population? Otherwise he's just subsidizing cars and eating the costs. Raising the wages directly for labor-related issues makes more sense. You have to remember that rich people like Henry Ford and their estate/descendants (e.g. the Ford Foundation) like to manufacture an image for themselves. It's a nice story if instead of spreading anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, Henry Ford was a great friend to the workers with a nonsensical business concept. "Indeed, as a vocal antisemite, he used his status as one of America's most well-known and trusted business leaders to systematically spread conspiracy theories about Jews. His screeds against Jewish people became so well-known at home and abroad that he is the only American whom Adolf Hitler compliments by name in Mein Kampf. ... But while it dramatically reduced manufacturing time—from 12.5 hours to 93 minutes per car, allowing mass production of up to 10,000 Model T cars a day by 1925—it also made his workers’ jobs more monotonous and unsatisfying. The turnover rate at Ford’s Highland Park, Michigan factory soared to 370 percent. To solve the problem, Ford realized it would be cheaper to raise wages (which at the time were competitive with those at other auto companies) than to continue hiring and training new people at the same pace. So on January 5, 1914, he announced that his company would double wages to $5 a day. The move proved seismic: By prompting wage hikes across the car industry, historians say, it gave American factory workers a crucial boost into the middle class, allowing many to afford their own Model Ts. ... While $5 a day was a generous factory wage at the time, it came with a substantial catch. Technically, workers’ pay remained less than or near $2.50 a day, and the extra money was a bonus they had to earn. The year Ford introduced the bonus, he established a company Sociological Department that sent inspectors to the homes of his employees—at this point, mostly male immigrants—to make sure they were living in a way Ford approved of. Workers were denied the full $5 a day if their wives worked outside the home, if their homes were unclean, if they displayed signs of drinking or gambling, if they took in boarders or if they didn’t contribute to a savings account. " https://www.history.com/news/henry-ford-antisemitism-worker-treatment https://www.history.com/news/henry-ford-antisemitism-worker-... Worth noting that American companies did stuff like this in South America too. The population generally doesn't want to work on the terms of the corporation, so they "terraform" the place until they have a compliant population. Shredding extended family ties, religions, etc. Anything that would interfere with the relationship between a man and his boss.
ramesh31 3y ago
>Maybe we will go back to that kind of situation where the median will be considered squarely in 'the masses' class and nowhere near 'rich'. We're already there. American society has stratified into three groups over the last 20 years. There's the 99th percentile elite who have hoarded over half of all overall wealth, the 90th percentile bourgeois (tech workers, lawyers, doctors, etc.) that are able to maintain a modicum of security and prosperity through real wage growth, and then the masses below who are desperately working themselves to death for near starvation wages to service the above two classes, with zero chance of economic mobility.
- candiodari 3y ago
  ... And yet if you replaced everyone's wages with the average (which is of course the best redistribution can achieve), $97,962, call it $100k whilst that would be an increase of just shy of $30k per year, minus tax on that ($30k), average rent ($30k), transport ($11k), food ($5k), entertainment ($4k) ... which would leave you with $20k. Note that taxes are progressive, so from a $70k wage you get about $10k "free cash" to spend, whilst a $100k wage gives you the above number of about $20k. So it takes A little over 2.5 years' worth of average full-time wages to buy a car in the US. Therefore I disagree, the problem is the average cost of a new car, expressed in labor (2.5 years average full-time labor), much more than the stratification of US society. I would argue 6 months full-time labor would be quite expensive for a car, and for the value of a car to be that, you'd need to make $170k per year, you'd have to be in the top 10%. Only at a 5% income do the cars this article talks about become reasonably priced. And I do mean reasonably priced. Not cheap. Second problem is if you look at where the problem is, profit ("capitalism") ... is not the problem. GM makes $2,150 per car, the average car manufacturer half that, according to Google. Whilst this amount would move the needle a bit, it would certainly not solve the problem. That would make cars affordable for the top 11% of the population (and that's taking the GM figures), which would be just the tiniest of improvement. According to this article: https://carfromjapan.com/article/industry-knowledge/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-a-car/ https://carfromjapan.com/article/industry-knowledge/how-much... Only raw material cost, labor and (barely) tax would make a decent dent (at least 10%) in the cost of a car. Note: numbers all just Googled and taken at face value, maybe converting to per year (from per month) but no more processing. Obviously big mistakes could have happened, although I think not. I could do better but back of the envelope this should be about correct.

cs702 3y ago

...because of (a) car-price inflation kick-started by pandemic-era supply shocks, and (b) rising interest rates meant to drive down the rate of price inflation. In short, both cars themselves and car-financing are more expensive.

jen20 3y ago
“Supply shocks” make it sound like something that could not be anticipated, rather than something that was caused by active incompetence from auto manufacturers at the start of the pandemic.
- jandrese 3y ago
  Even worse, when you dive into the "supply shocks" they were all in all fairly minor and tracked the decrease in demand. A lot of inflation is just companies using the excuse to raise prices and pad the bottom line.
- jonathankoren 3y ago
  The supply shocks of checks notes three years ago, were certainly unanticipated. But it's been three years now, and prices haven't come down even though supply problems are clearing up. So what's up with prices? Well, to paraphrase the old sportscaster Warner Wolf, let's just go to the quarterly reports! Around the all the industries profits are setting records while they reassure investors that supply chain price increases are immaterial, and have full expectation that customers will simply accept the new prices. https://www.kansascityfed.org/Economic%20Review/documents/9329/EconomicReviewV108N1GloverMustredelRiovonEndeBecker.pdf https://www.kansascityfed.org/Economic%20Review/documents/93...
  - a_subsystem 3y ago
    When the government prints more money, all money loses value.
    - jonathankoren 3y ago

Proven 3y ago

[dead]

skybrian 3y ago

US vehicle sales were up in April [1], [2], so someone is buying them. [1] https://economics.td.com/us-vehicle-sales https://economics.td.com/us-vehicle-sales [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ALTSALES https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ALTSALES

georgeburdell 3y ago
There’s a huge backlog right now. An increase in sales tracks an increase in supply. The situation is changing rapidly, anecdotally. My local Toyota deal dropped their dealer markup from $10k to $5k recently
TechBro8615 3y ago
Perhaps it's Uber drivers buying them with financing after being forced to drive a sufficiently recent model of vehicle.
jandrese 3y ago
A lot of that seems to be fleet sales to rental companies that need to recover from dumping their inventory to stay afloat during the pandemic.

gaudat 3y ago

Just join the motorcycle club...

stronglikedan 3y ago
I hear they're constantly making space for new members.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
You don't see a lot of motorcycles with snow tires.
- germinalphrase 3y ago
  Or toddlers.

splitstud 3y ago

[dead]

bryanlarsen 3y ago

Meanwhile the average price of an EV has dropped $10,000 over the last 12 months. https://insideevs.com/news/666533/average-ev-transaction-prices-down-kelley-blue-book/ https://insideevs.com/news/666533/average-ev-transaction-pri... The average EV price is not yet less than the average internal combustion vehicle price, but it's getting close. TCO for the average EV is almost certainly less than TCO for the average ICE vehicle.

BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
A correction from an inflated peak all across 2022 when chip shortages starved supply and gas prices surged EV demand. Production for many of the highly sought-after models is only now starting to catch up.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Average EV price in 2020 was $55,000 and average ICE price was $39,000. Average EV price today is $55,000 and average ICE price is $48,000. Both ICE & EV went up about $10K, but the EV price has dropped back and the ICE hasn't.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Add in the $7500 federal tax credit on that EV and it's a dead heat. Even worse Tesla has a hefty margin on their vehicles right now and could go lower if they really wanted to put the squeeze on traditional automakers. They're also aggressively cost cutting the production. I think Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Volkswagon, etc... are in more trouble than most people realize at the moment. I'm not saying they're going to go out of business next year, but I think they're going to experience significant market shrinkage in the coming decade if they continue down the path they are on.
- lapcat 3y ago
  I gave up on the idea of a Toyota Corolla Hybrid ($23K) when they said there was an 8 month wait list for one.

Spivak 3y ago

This article is kinda missing it. New vehicles are have always been a luxury for people with money to waste. Unless you get some crazy deal and financing they're never a good financial decision. Well that used to be true, the actual painful thing going on with the car market right now is that in some ridiculous twist of events is that used costs more than new for a lot of vehicles. So yes new cars are more expensive, but used cars are a lot more expensive which hollows out the market that serves the average car buyer.

helen___keller 3y ago

> Back in 2017, if you wanted a car that cost less than $20,000, you had 11 options. Fast forward to March of 2023, and that list had been narrowed to only two. The story here is just “inflation happened”

prng2021 3y ago
That’s definitely a big part, but the other major reasons are: 1. Companies are focusing on selling higher profit margin vehicles (more expensive models vs high volume budget models) 2. Companies are focusing on SUVs and trucks since bigger cars are in demand. 3. To a small extent, the focus on inherently more expensive EV models
- jeffwask 3y ago
  And even in a subgroup like trucks, try buying a basic stripped down pickup like you could 15-20 years ago. Just two doors and an 8 foot bed, a truck... they don't make them anymore. Instead you get one of these giant penis extensions they sell now and call trucks. I don't want 4 doors and leather, it doesn't need to be 8 feet off the ground, it doesn't need to the the size and weight of a semi... I just want a utility vehicle to haul crap between home depot, the dump, and my house. Even what used to be cheap, practical cars are now draped in "optional" bullshit you can't opt out of. And now they want to gate features in my car behind yearly subscriptions, they can fuck right off. I'm not even tempted to buy new. I'm more likely to start buying older I don't want my car getting random software bugs and phoning home to turn of my heated seats.
  - babelthuap 3y ago
    True. I recently inherited a small 2016 truck. It's so stripped down my nephew didn't know what the crank was on the door. He had never seen a manual window crank ha! It does however have one nice feature; bluetooth. I could easily afford a nice car but this little truck is perfect. I don't drive that much so I could see having it the rest of my days barring gasoline is still made. I have no desire for a new car.
3y ago

dgoodell 3y ago

They say there are fewer new cars available at $21k today than in 2017. Did they take into account inflation? $21k in Jan 2017 is nearly $26k Jan 2023. There seems to be plenty of new cars that cost that amount.

acdha 3y ago
Inflation has gone up in no small part due to cars. They’re one of the biggest factors and people who aren’t buying them or driving heavily have seen far lower rates of inflation.
- vl 3y ago
  Inflation has gone up due to the reckless money printing, car prices just reflect this fact.
  - mft_ 3y ago
    …and supply chain issues, a war in Europe, and opportunistic corporate profiteering…
julienfr112 3y ago
You can adjust for inflation when wages follow it. I wonder for what proportion of the populaton it's the case.
olyjohn 3y ago
Wages aren't going up with inflation. So if people couldn't afford a $26k car in 2017, how do you think they can afford it now?

shmatt 3y ago

EVs are the way to go right now. Between the "fleet" loophole for federal credits, state credits, free charging for 2-3 years in some cases, discounted charging at night, manufacturers trying to get rid of the EVs that didn't succeed, no sales tax in some states. It's probably 50% cheaper than an ICE car

Beached 3y ago
can you please link an ev that's cheaper than a 26k total cost of ownership over a 10y period(excluding registration) I bought a midsized sedan in 2019, 10y warranty, 17k out the door. I tried to justify the cost of an ev, the cheapest I could find was 32k after credits.
- okdood64 3y ago
  People don't buy EVs in the US to be economical. That's not a thing yet. It's something for relatively rich people to do as a status symbol or for luxury, since most EVs are fairly luxurious.
  - germinalphrase 3y ago
    Yep. The bottom of the EV market is sparse. Everyone is focusing on the 40k+ market.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  If you do 200,000 miles over those 10 years on a 20mpg car with $5/gallon gas, that's $50K in gas for your $17k car. I assume your numbers are lower, but it's not hard to see how TCO for an EV can be cheaper for many. My electric company just introduced a 2.9c/kWh overnight rate. At 4 miles/kWh, that works out $1450 for 200,000 miles.
- elcano 3y ago
  With credits, Aisera base model may get close to that number. But you will have to wait for it to be released and there're lots of people in line ahead of you. With that price and their right to repair policy, it is the less risky of the EV startups at this moment. The link goes to the Launch Edition. But you can edit the options to reduce the sticker price to $25,600. However, the All-Wheel option is tempting. Nobody needs a 0-60MPH in 3.5 seconds car, but it's very cool, anyway. https://aptera.us/shop/ https://aptera.us/shop/ Depending on your commuting needs and sun availability in your area you might not need to recharge, ever.

glitchc 3y ago

Safety is a big factor here. The basic trim for all entry level models includes driving aids such as proximity sensors, blind spot warning, backup camera, pre-collision warning. The changes required to integrate those features into the car are diverse and influence design. The net result is that it's not economically feasible to offer them as optional components on higher trims and the base price of all models goes up as a result.

olyjohn 3y ago
Meh. I feel like that's a scapegoat that they like to use. Honda packed all that into the Fit (Honda Sensing), and it wasn't a $50,000 car. It was reasonably priced, and an excellent, economical car, with a top safety rating. It's literally the exact same tech used in their top end cars. But what they did was, they killed the Fit in the US. So now the cheapest Honda car you can get is the Civic. Which isn't the small car it used to be. I mean also, how much does this tech cost really? A backup camera? You really gonna claim that cars are unaffordable because of a $20 LCD and $10 camera installed into the bumper? Pre-collision warnings, blind spot monitoring, it's all 20 year old tech now. And it comes in everything.
- ROTMetro 3y ago
  So your argument on a software development site is that feature creep isn't a thing?
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> unaffordable because of a $20 LCD and $10 camera installed into the bumper? Yes. An automotive-grade LCD that will last years, plus a camera that will survive the elements, not mention the unreliable power supplies on which these must operate. Then 10+ feet of cable. Then the dozen little plastic clips to keep that cable secure. Then the manpower to install all of this. Yes. That camera system is more expensive than an injection-molded mirror bolted to the exterior of a car or glued to a windscreen. Multiply that by dozens of similar little things and it does result in more expensive vehicles.
- germinalphrase 3y ago

naravara 3y ago

This may not be the worst thing honestly, from an environmental perspective. The cars themselves have much longer usable lives now so it's for the best that cars move down to new users instead of needing to build more and more. The downsides, however, is that while the car part of the car is more durable and long-lasting than ever, the software/computer parts of the car are hamstrung by terrible decisions that are sure to age very poorly. This will only get worse when GM decides they want to turn the infotainment screen into a data-harvesting cash cow. Also, this will slow down the transition to EVs. And it ends up saturating the used car market with cars designed with the tastes of show-boating new-car buyers in mind. This screws over people who just want a humble, reliable, practical vehicle instead of an overspecced, oversized, brodozer.

GalenErso 3y ago
More expensive cars are better for the environment if people start driving less or stop driving. But it's worse for the environment if people hold on to older cars, because they are less fuel efficient than newer models and release more fine particles in the air.
- naravara 3y ago
  Is that still true of new cars made in the 2020s? I assume the emissions difference between a 6-10 year old ICE vehicle and a brand new ICE vehicle are probably pretty negligible in light of the footprint required to produce and bring a brand new ICE vehicle to market.
jonathankoren 3y ago
> This may not be the worst thing honestly, from an environmental perspective. From a purely carbon perspective, new cars are always cleaner than old cars. This is simply due to less wear and tear, and technology improvements.
- ska 3y ago
  From a systemic point of view, you have to look at carbon impact of production (and end of life). Being a bit more efficient doesn't necessary net out well.

driverdan 3y ago

Seems like this should link to the source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/07/new-car-market-high-interest-rates/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/05/07/new-car-m...

lapcat 3y ago

Honda dropped the lowest priced Civic LX model from their 2023 lineup https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a41612385/2023-honda-civic-pricing/ https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a41612385/2023-honda-civic... but then backtracked because of customer demand. https://www.motorbiscuit.com/honda-civic-lx-returns-2023-cheapest-honda-civic-back/ https://www.motorbiscuit.com/honda-civic-lx-returns-2023-che...

falcolas 3y ago

If you're purchasing a new vehicle for over $40k, you're getting scammed IMO. There's a lot of great electric and hybrid vehicles with good reliability history. But if you want to look like a _____ in a lifted dodge ram, well, we'll be happy to give you plenty of room on the road to roll your coal.

notadev 3y ago
The same can be said about all the ______ driving their status symbol Teslas.
- falcolas 3y ago
  You're probably right. At least a Tesla can't be modified to roll coal. Yes people do that. Yes, they're absolute pricks. And at least most Teslas don't have their light bars at head height thanks to the lift kits. Nothing quite like the inside of your car being illuminated like it's noon at midnight. But in the end, I'll take a pretentious prick over a malicious prick.
sp332 3y ago
Do they actually exist on dealer lots now? For a while there, big cars and pickups were the only ones available. And dealerships were marking up electric cars so high that manufacturers got mad and started threatening them. https://www.motor1.com/news/569524/hyundai-genesis-avoid-dealer-markups/ https://www.motor1.com/news/569524/hyundai-genesis-avoid-dea...
- falcolas 3y ago
  Vehicles are rolling onto the lots quite a bit right now. Manufacturing is catching up. However, they're rolling right back off the lots too, after 3+ years of shortages.
a_subsystem 3y ago
Show me an electric passenger truck that can pull 20,000 pounds.

SkipperCat 3y ago

A quick trip on the Googles: 2023 Nissan Versa - $17,366 2023 Kia Rio - $18,371 2023 Mitsubishi Mirage - $17,140 Just sayin....

Toutouxc 3y ago
Yeah, Kia Forte is still sub $20k. That’s a perfectly good car that seats four adults and does 40 MPG (kinda meh in Europe but okay). If you need more car than that for driving to work and buying groceries on the way home, that’s your problem, and I have zero sympathy for you.

ericmay 3y ago

Another blow against the "cars = freedom" mantra we have so wrongly pursued for 50+ years. Now that prices are up and highway maintenance costs are continuing to increase you have no alternative but to open your wallet for the automakers and state departments of roads and highways bureaucrats because guess what, they've legislated your density and your sidewalks and bike lanes away and stopped you from taking the train.

yamtaddle 3y ago
When I ran the numbers for "am I, high-paid for my city and only at a medium-distance from the city center by local commuter standards, benefitting from the existence of cars?" over a decade ago, I was at break-even (except that I'd be healthier in a bike-and-walking-centric version of my city). Now? Haha. Hahaha. If I still had to commute, the numbers would surely be way into the "cars are a net-cost" side. And I've got a far better situation for that than most do....

danielvaughn 3y ago

I'm speaking out of ignorance here, since I have no idea what role a microchip plays in modern vehicles, but obviously it's geared towards software components. Assuming that's true, then this whole chip shortage would have been a great time for someone to bring a software-less, low-tech vehicle to the market. I've personally been wanting that as our last vehicle completely shit the bed when the digital transmission encountered an error. Plus I hate touch screens in cars.

sandworm101 3y ago
They aren't really what HN people would consider serious microchips. They certainly aren't CPUs. They are lots of basic little chips doing things like regulating an engine parameter or detecting brake pedal forces. One way forwards in reducing the overall demand for chips, the square-inches of silicon needed in a car, is to abandon the approach of scattering little chips all over the vehicle. Instead they could route all the wiring into a centralized control with a powerful CPU running effectively an OS for the entire vehicle. One chip to rule them all. But that just isn't how cars have evolved. History has incrementally made every system componentized and independent.
galaxytachyon 3y ago
Even a "low-tech" car is still very complicated to build. Someone who is good enough to make a very good old style car (like Honda or Toyota), isn't financially incentivized to do so anymore. Such a car would not have any features to justify its brand new price over a used one. And the cost to reserve an entire factory line for this model is just too expensive and probably sale won't recover the cost of doing so.
jandrese 3y ago
It's generally not possible to meet emissions guidelines without computer control of the engine. Fuel economy also suffers. It's all a tightwire balancing act and the mechanical carburetors of the past are simply too crude to get the job done.
6510 3y ago
The older trains in NL have a computer that reads and displays all kinds of things but it controls nothing. If it doesn't work the train functions just fine. A linux car seems a fun twist.

skrtskrt 3y ago

I think people tend to miss an important aspect of this conversation: Cars as a whole are massively much more reliable for a lot longer than they used to, making used cars way more viable for most people. Even the traditionally less-reliable brands are not exploding at 70k miles like they did 15 or 20 years ago.

Toutouxc 3y ago

From the Washington post article: > Ramirez, 33, and his wife Angelica Castro-Calle really want a new, small SUV with a little space for camping and paddleboarding gear > Johnny Loredo and his wife paid $38,000 for a new Nissan Frontier truck > If they hadn’t had a used Suburban to trade in Yeaah. That could be the issue. People aren’t looking to buy cars anymore, but tanks.

whycombagator 3y ago
To be fair, you quoted a couple that traded in a Suburban for a Nissan Frontier. The former is one of the biggest mass produced vehicles you can buy, the Frontier is large but considerably smaller and wouldn’t be out of place on European roads (truck wise). And the first part of the quote describes a small SUV for another couple. Everyone’s definition of “small SUV” will vary, but I’m not sure many would infer tank. Of course, your definition of tank could be very different to mine.

yamtaddle 3y ago

We make like 3-3.5x household median for our city and I can't imagine buying a new car. The prices are batshit crazy. In the late '00s budget cars existed at like $9k new and $20k would get you a pretty damn good vehicle. Now that barely gets you a pretty damn good seven-year-old, used vehicle.

tfandango 3y ago

I feel this a bit. I had a Jeep Grand Cherokee which I loved but decided to have engine problems which apparently is not uncommon. After months of attempted repairs the only option left was a replacement engine that cost more than the value of the car. I considered it but decided against on the advice of a trusted mechanic who says the Jeep replacement engines are problematic and I'd just be inviting more repair cost. Based on how things had gone, I imagined this is correct. I wanted to cheap, small, 2wd pickup to toss rocks and woodchips and the like into for around the town chores which I seem to do a lot of. Does not exist, somewhere along the line everyone decided a pickup truck is some sort of luxury vehicle with all kinds of bells and whistles. While base model trucks are affordable, I cannot find one anywhere, only high-level trims are available. And a used truck with 100k miles is still outrageously expensive and I have shell shock from the Jeep engine blowing up at that milage.

upon_drumhead 3y ago
I really wish I could have my old Toyota light truck from the mid 90s again. It was perfect for those light run around town jobs. Who knew that they would be impossible to find 30 years later.

ROTMetro 3y ago

Has anyone looked into knock on effects from the Obama era cash for clunkers that reduced the used car supply by 677,081 cars? I always thought that was going to impact affordability. It removed lower cost vehicles AND their future cannibalization for parts to keep other low cost vehicles on the road. The other change I wonder is just the longevity of cars (which could counteract impact from cash for clunkers). My father used to buy a new car every 3-4 years in the 90s because cars sucked. Cars are more expensive now, but last much longer. My 7 year old car is as good as new still, my dad kept his last car 10 years. Is a product that lasts triple the amount of time for less than triple the old price actually more expensive? No, but it IS now contradictingly unaffordable. It becomes the rich people and shoes trope. Poor people can only afford cheap shoes that wear out more often. When I could afford nice italian boots that lasted longer and were amazingly more comfortable I actually spent less on shoes, but I had to be able to shell out $500 for boots. Now I can only afford $40 for junk. Heck I have shirts from Nordstroms from 10 years ago that I still get complimented on but can't replace and am forced to slowly replace with cheap garbage shirts than wear out in a year because I'm broke and am sad to see myself fall into that trap knowing I am throwing away money to the benefit of looking worse for more $$$ spent over time. All that said having moved down about 10 social economic groups the people I know have 2 daily struggles that keep them in constant anxiety. Housing and keeping their cars running. The system is not going to hold if this keeps up. People can't live in this constant stress and anxiety with no hope and are going to look to some way out. In the past in other countries that's been far left or far right political charlatans. Yet the people up high still expect the status quo to hold and are doing nothing to make things better.

bryanlarsen 3y ago
I don't think the people & shoes trope necessarily applies. You can buy something like a Kia Forte for under $20K and I bet it's more reliable than a $50K BMW.

TradingPlaces 3y ago

It’s because used cars have gotten so good that automakers can’t compete with them at the low end. https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/49663329-trading-places-research/5874921-why-new-cars-are-expensive-in-us https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/49663329-trading-places-r...

tb_technical 3y ago

Yep! But that's ok! Now we can all ride bakfeits, which are perfect for most American's needs and will make us thinner and healthier!