• Verdant Banana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    not to mention insurance costs and taxes

    used vehicles cost nearly same in most cases and in poor condition

    yes let us blame trucks not the $7.50 minimum wage and the inflation and what have yous

    biden and electric vehicle are not the jesus of our times

    going to take a lot to make travel affordable again and on that note the more traveling costs the less people do it and the less they travel the more stuck in the state they are at they become

    way more than prohibitively expensive vehicles here this is a means to keep citizens in place and poor

  • CoreOffset@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Cars have always been relatively expensive to own and operate and the American way, unfortunately, has been to take out lines of credit in order to purchase vehicles they could just barely afford.

    It’s insane to think about but the average car payment for a new vehicle in 2023 was $726 and the average loan term is nearly 70 months!

    • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve always lived by two rules when it comes to vehicles:

      1. Never buy new. Buy approximately two years old used low mileage

      2. If I can’t afford the vehicle on a three year note, I can’t afford the vehicle

      Additionally, always secure third party financing and have it in your back pocket, but don’t tell the dealership that part until absolutely necessary. They may try to match it, but their fine print has always had catches it in that make it a worse option in my experience.

      I’m not sure if these rules will work going forward as prices seem to have doubled in the past three years, and I’m loathe to ponder how purchase is getting replaced by subscribe.

      My current car is ten years old with 110k miles on it. I keep it super maintained because I can’t stomach the thought of my next buying experience.

    • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      By the time you pay off your car, it’ll be a piece of junk. How does leasing the car compare?

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Leasing is like setting money on fire and using money to put the fire out. The only scenario it ever makes sense is vs buying and selling a car every 2-3 years.

        Modern cars are extremely reliable, there isn’t a good reason to need a new one in less than a decade unless it’s involved in an accident.

  • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    According to an October report by Market Watch, Americans needed an annual income of at least $100,000 to afford a car, at least if they’re following standard budgeting advice, which says you shouldn’t spend more than 10 percent of your monthly income on car-related expenses.

    This is a dumb way to determine whether someone can “afford” a car.

      • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Monthly payments depend on loan term and interest rates as well as principal. I don’t think that is a good way to determine whether you can afford something.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          They didn’t list out every factor of the standard advice. The standard advice also includes 20% down and no longer than a 48 month payback period. So it more or less locks it in, other than rate.

  • iamjackflack@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Stop buying suvs and trucks. Buy compacts and small sedans. As those markets erode it just makes everything worse.

  • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    If we’d always been accounting for all the actual costs of cars, including externalities, most people would have never been able to afford them, we’d recognize them as the very costly luxeries they actually are, and not have completely dismantled our ability to live without them in every city except NYC, Boston, Chicago, DC, and San Francisco.

    • Nomecks@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Up until I got an EV I never thought about dollar per 100 km. On “fuel”, I used to be near $20/100km for my premium powered midsize SUV.

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      You could say that about everything. If you would account for all actual cost no one would fly, eat steaks, own 2 TVs or change phones every 2 years either. We would buy things that last 10-20 years and replace them only when they are broken. As we used to…

      • Erismi14@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Slippery slope aside, I think reducing unnecessary consumerism would be beneficial for our most vuneral populations. There would be a lower barrier of entry into the economy and more resources would be available at a lower cost for people who cannot afford them

        • ExLisper@linux.community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Oh, I wasn’t making a slippery slope argument. I meant that this is what should happen. We exported most of the devastating impact on the environment and the terrible working conditions to developing countries so that we can enjoy tons of crap we don’t really need. If things we buy would reflect the actual costs we would have to limit how much we consume. Of course no one would like it.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well, it’s a mixed bag. There have been absolutely incredible advances in efficiency that do enable a lot of things to genuinely be much cheaper and accessible than they used to be, but some of that is also just the ability to throw external costs on other people (climate change, for instance). This is why things like carbon taxes are so strongly supported by economists.

        Steak, for instance, is hugely subsidized by how little farmers have to pay for water, along with other government benefits. Flying has environmental costs, but those are reasonably quantifiable and, per flight and per passenger, not that insane as far as I understand.

        I do think consumer electronics are a bit of a different story though. Yes, cheap labor plays a huge role there, but those labor costs aren’t completely divorced from reality; the fact of the matter is that east Asian labor is actually chap. Ocean shipping and modern production plants are insanely efficient, though again climate costs need to be captured.

  • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    On the other hand, the world could have its first trillionaire within the decade!

    And you know how like 1 billion seconds in 31.7 years…guess how many 1 trillion seconds is in years…

    ...you ready?

    A little under 31,690 years

    But unlike Americans living in an unaffordable country, our future trillionaire earned it…right?