J.D. Vance says no one can afford a car anymore. As usual, this kind of doom mongering is wrong. It's true that car prices spiked during the pandemic, but here's the long-term picture:
Car affordability goes up and down based on various factors: recessions (2007), factory problems (Fukushima), supply chain problems (COVID), changes in taste (SUVs vs. sedans), and so forth. But the trendline has been dead flat for 30+ years and new car prices are already starting to correct for their pandemic spike.
This is all the more remarkable because you get so much more for the same price these days. Essentially every car made now has: airbags, anti-lock brakes, fuel injection, GPS, infotainment systems, air conditioning, adaptive cruise control, lane keeping, better gas mileage, better reliability, and more.
Things are fine. Politicians and newspapers have incentives to make everything seem bad, but the facts say otherwise. No human beings anywhere in the world at any point in history have been better off than the average US citizen of 2024.
Unless, of course, they have the wrong health care coverage.
If only like 10% or so of Americans lack health coverage, by definition, the average American has health coverage. And ACA requires those plans to cover most necessary stuff with no annual or lifetime limits. I understand still having to pay 10% or 20% of your bill or pay an unsubsidized premium are big crippling lifts for average Americans, but they’re still better off than they were 10 years ago when insurance companies could just play Calvinball with their policies and claims.
I made this counter argument sometime ago when there was some website, whose name I have mercifully forgotten, that conservatives were pointing to that "PROVED" that the real inflation rate was 10% and not 2%. I pointed out that if that were true, the Accord that I bought for $12K would, at the time, cost something like $75000 and it didn't, more like $24,000. In addition, as KD pointed out, the latest model Accord was a much, much better car. Naturally, I convinced no one.
[Edit: brain cells fired, I think it was called shadowstats]
Why should you have to convince them they're wrong. They made a claim, you were skeptical with good reason -- whupped 'em pretty hard, I would imagine -- and now they're acting all butthurt because you weren't buying their bullshit. Instead of, you know, putting on their big boy pants and answering your questions.
In 1989 I bought a new Toyota Camry. I purchased the “bare bones model because I could afford it. It cost about $12k
https://www.cargurus.com/research/1989-Toyota-Camry-c4146
If you wanted to buy a Toyota Camry today and wanted the “bare bones” model it would cost $26,420
https://www.toyota101.com/toyota-research/toyota-camry-price/
CPI calculator says $12k in 1989 has the same buying power as $31k today. So cars today are cheaper than they were in 1989.
As a corollary, when I was in high school in the so-called Golden Age of big American cars, gas was around thirty-five cents a gallon (1969). That translates to $3.00 today. Last time I bought gas it was $3.25, only slightly higher.
But the car I drove in high school got around 15 miles to the gallon. The car I drive today, also a full-sized car, gets 30. So it is almost half as cheap for me to drive today than it was then. And as pointed out above, my car today is much better in almost every way - safer, more reliable, better features, etc.
I remember people bragging that they had over 150,000 miles on their car. Really 100k was considered a lot. My last car had 250k when I traded it in.
And as Kevin will point out, gasoline now does not poison the brains of our youth, turning them into criminals.
Right-wingers shrieked hysterically at the time that removing lead would destroy the automotive industry.
Why anyone listens to these goons is utterly beyond me.
No comment about the absence of Trump on the road, replaced with Vance?
He told Jonathan Karl on Sunday, "The person who wants to be our president ought to sit down for some tough interviews. I'm willing to do it and she should, too."
No one else saw it as the subconscious desires of Vance to replace Trump at the top of the ticket, or at least an oblique criticism of Trump?
I think the odds are slightly higher right now that either Trump or Vance will be replaced.
I think it's too late, and the Trump worshippers would never accept Trump being replaced anyway. Vance, he could be gone soon if Trump needs someone to blame and throw overboard.
Trumps ego rules out his replacement. Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't it too late to replace Vance at this point due to certain election laws in certain states? Besides I doubt Trump will replace him. If he does and loses it'll be seen as his fault. If he keeps Vance and loses he'll blame Vance. It's a no brainer for Trump. Which is good because he's doesn't have much of one left.
It's too late to replace names on the ballots of Ohio without going through the courts (or a promise by the Ohio GOP in control of state gov't to let the campaign change the ballots). Towards the end of August / start of September come a rash of other states. But I really don't see the bluest of blue states wanting to block the changing of names on ballots.
I think if one or the other left, it would be for several reasons. But, I see Trump afraid of losing to a Black woman as the top reason. Have you seen how obsessed he is with her?
I see a scenario where, after the debate the polls show him losing in North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio, with Texas suddenly in play, Trump goes searching for a way out. Using a quid pro quo with his replacement to get a blanket pardon, he bows out, claiming he wants a new generation to fight for him.
I don't see the narcissistic Trump ever thinking he will lose. How could he? The world revolves around him.
He had a rally in Montana (!) and spent a couple of hours being fellated by a multibillionaire on a (rickety) private social media platform.
That’s Trump’s idea of a tough week facing down the press.
That thing J.D. Vance is pretending to worry about (anything he can think of to win the election)? It's not a big deal to Kevin Drum. Literally nothing is a big deal to Kevin Drum except computers taking everyone's job, which they definitely will.
Vance has adopted Trumps doomsday vision where everything is horrible. Most of it is ????????. But Vance can lie just as well as Trump. For the most part.
Don't mind JD, he's still upset that the writers for The Simpsons rescinded their offer to open an episode after he was announced as the VP pick. Apparently they'd heard that he could make a couch gag, but it was all a big misunderstanding...
Tip your waitresses, folks
MEOOOOOW. You can thank JOE B. for this !! Kitties know !
For the record, Kevin is bending over backward to clean up what Vance actually said, which is this:
"Thanks to Kamala Harris's spending policies, the average new car costs nearly $50,000 a year."
Hardly the worst thing that Vance said today, but a gaffe is a gaffe and that's news.
Aside from that, part of what is driving up the "average" price of a car is monster trucks masquerading as cars. Ford doesn't even offer cars for sale in the US anymore other than the Mustang. A "typically equipped" Explorer does cost around $50K out the door which of course drives up the "average" price as you can't buy a Fiesta, Focus, or Fusion anymore.
Ford does have the compact SUV Escape which is under $30k unless you add stuff.
average HH income? or median HH income?
You're arguing facts. Trump's base have their own alternative facts, thank you very much.
Idunno, I think it's fucking wild to spend 50% of household income on a goddamn car. In that sense, things are not fine to my perspective.
the flip side of that is the value of your trade-in is higher
(depreciation depends on the model of course)
Yah, a lot of Americans are really stupid about cars. Econoboxes ought to be a lot more popular.
"Idunno, I think it's fucking wild to spend 50% of household income on a goddamn car."
Indeed. But since ~75% of total car sales are for used cars, the cost of a new car is not particularly relevant to the question of whether or not things are fine.
If 3/4 of total car sales are for used cars, it absolutely says something about the cost of a new car being relevant to the fineness of things. If new cars were more affordable, folks wouldn't be buying used so much.
This is like the measuring of food prices based on what consumers are buying. If regular food is too expensive and people start buying pet food instead, they measure the price of pet food and conclude that the cost of groceries isn't affecting people all that much.
The market for used cars is also a function of the longevity of cars. Time was that cars were quite shitty and had to be replaced frequently; contemporary vehicles are much, much higher quality, and last much longer (see the note above from iamr4man). The longer they last, the larger the secondary car market is going to be.
After all, think about it: used cars are not a replacement good for new cars in the same way as your colorful example of pet food versus groceries suggests. Since the market cannot manufacture additional used vehicles in response to demand, the pool of available used cars is going to depend primarily on how long cars last.
At least according to the chart, this has been the case for at least 34 years. And Americans have been fine. Most people (I guess) take out a loan to get a car and pay it over time. The whole point is that even though this is the case, it has been the case for a long time and everyone seems to be ok.
Lol, you don't understand. It's every White Christianist heteronormative American's RIGHT to be able to afford an absurd truck-shaped vehicle that costs $85,000 BEFORE options, and the only reason they can't is those damn IMMIGRANTS keep STEALING JOBS, and also something something Inner City WELFARE something!
I'm not looking for a new car because my 2004 Impala only has 250,000 miles on it and runs fine. It'd be great to go electric but I only put about 5000 miles a year on the car so the economics aren't there.
But if I won the lottery I'd still have a hard time going for a new car. It seems like the main thing the auto makers are in business for is to steal your personal information. Am I wrong about that?
It applied more decades ago, but there is still the maxim that "GM is a financing company that also builds cars."
They want you to make regular payments that meet their quarterly revenue targets. They will give you cars, trade-ins, financing options, and anything else that meets those targets in return, so long as you sign papers that oblige you to make certain payments every month. That's pretty much it.
Of course, they'll do their best to make you WANT to make LARGER payments. I mean, unless you don't think you DESERVE a jacked-up truck-shaped vehicle with bizarrely wide tires and ridiculously overpriced alloy wheels, possibly because you are insecure about your manhood. But they'll give you whatever car and payment plan meets their targets, even if it makes it clear you are a hopeless cuck.
My manhood's secure because I own a Garand. That allows me to drive any car I want. Also, I'm an engineer, so I'm kinda immune from social pressure. No one expects anything from me.
But the prices seem really high for those going out to buy their first new car, or those who have held onto their car for over a decade and don't think prices should have changed at all...
The real issues are insurance, which has gone up a lot, and car payments. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has tried to crack down bad loans, but I'm not sure how far they got on this:
https://www.consumerreports.org/money/car-financing/how-loophole-ridden-auto-lending-laws-harm-consumers-a3113489289/
and:
https://www.propublica.org/article/wall-street-bet-big-on-used-car-loans-now-crisis-may-be-looming
People always want to pay yesterday’s prices with today’s wages. (With the exception of computers, of course.)
By the way: bought it new for $18,300 including taxes.
Cost of owning and operating a car:
https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/bzt6-t8cd/
Only goes from 2002 to 2022, and the latter had a spike in gas prices:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_YORD_DPG&f=M
“No human beings anywhere in the world at any point in history have been better off than the average US citizen of 2024.”
Except, of course, for wealthy people in many places.
And most people in western Europe
Actually, many cars don't have GPS anymore. What they do have is an interface to Android and Apple phones, which of course do have GPS. The advantage is that the phones keep their maps up-to-date in a way that cars never did ($200 for new maps, for example, as opposed to free).
Caspar Gutman would have made a better president than Donald Trump.
More competent, less crooked.
You can actually see the front line of Russia-Ukraine war from space,
https://old.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1es3hmr/you_can_actually_see_the_front_line_of/
You don't even need to look at the cost of new vehicles. The simple fact that 17 million new vehicles were sold in the US last year says that lots of people can afford new vehicles.