321–330 of 340 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I bought a RAV4 over the summer. There was no inventory (hint: dealer web sites will lie to you about what's actually available to purchase), I ended up reserving one that hadn't been shipped to the dealer yet and waiting for around a month for it to arrive. Autotrader shows zero of the same trim for sale used within 500 miles so not even sure what it would sell for.
Funny how Americans want to be able to buy cars directly from the forecourt of a particular dealer then and there. When I buy a new car in the UK I order from the manufacturer. In America how do you get the spec and colour you want if they've already made the car? And don't you object to buying something that's been sitting around outside for a while with lots of people getting in and out of it?
If you have the desire for a specific color/options and it’s not on the lot, the dealer will either get one from another dealer or order you one from the automaker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was in the same boat. I usually avoid buying new but used cars are nearly the same price as new (if you can find a dealer that hasn't done ridiculous 'market adjustments'). So we bought new. We had to buy a car that was just off the delivery truck before the dealership had it inspected. The one we'd looked at two days before was long gone and they expected the one we bought to be sold the next day. My neighbor trad…
Why do you think those market adjustments are ridiculous? Isn't that how supply and demand will adjust?
Quite rational market adjustments.
However...I did end up going to another dealership that didn't do the adjustments. Since I tend to stick with vendors, especially for large ticket items, I suspect the total lifetime value the first dealership missed out on by tacking on the market adjustment (that they didn't tell us about until we asked -- it wasn't on the sticker), eclipses the extra profit they would have made on that sale, even when adjusting for the time value of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably you are the only person with the password to your phone unless you use biometrics, with which you can be forced to unlock it. The car's black box, on the other hand, can be dumped by warrant (at the most).
I am referring to the mobile network operators in the country having knowledge of your location at all times if you have a connected and powered on mobile device, which is then available to the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically they are taking their increased compensation not in the form of more money from customers, but by improving their working conditions. It's very interesting, because this situation mirrors what economists predict about minimum wages: Employees take their compensation as a mixed basket of wages and non-monetary perks (like nicer working conditions or opportunities for learning and advancement). Different p…
I took "being selective" to mean focusing on the most profitable jobs.
Also, they have used this era to weed out the pain-in-the-ass customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone in the market for a new Porsche can probably wait. Someone in the market for a new Kia probably can't.
Someone in the market for a Porsche won't have to wait because they are high margin products. VW will be looking at the shortages and making the calculation that they are better off putting limited resources (chips) into Porsches rather than Skodas.
I have a feeling that this particular shitshow is still in Act I. Nobody at my company is ordering any new 911s, considering that the brokers have jacked up the prices of $50 FPGAs to $750.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically they are taking their increased compensation not in the form of more money from customers, but by improving their working conditions. It's very interesting, because this situation mirrors what economists predict about minimum wages: Employees take their compensation as a mixed basket of wages and non-monetary perks (like nicer working conditions or opportunities for learning and advancement). Different p…
> So orthodox economics predicts that increases in minimum wage leads, amongst other things, to deteriorating working conditions. I've never heard that take before, but it's a fascinating idea. Unfortunately, I think the problem we've run into in the U.S. is that minimum wage jobs have already hit rock bottom working conditions. Raising the minimum wage is the only thing left to improve conditions for those stuck in…
Have you seen working conditions in poorer parts of world, or in previous decades when the US was comparatively poorer?
What makes you think 2021 US is 'rock bottom'?
> Raising the minimum wage is the only thing left to improve conditions for those stuck in them.
Well, here again orthodox economics suggest other avenues: decrease taxation on labour, support increased competition between employers for labour (eg by allowing easier access by foreign companies, by making formation of capital easier, etc).
A really big deal in the US would be to 'decriminalize' construction of new housing. That by itself would open up oodles of blue collar job opportunities to compete with existing employers, and it would also decrease what everyone (including workers) has to pay afford a place to stay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So orthodox economics predicts that increases in minimum wage leads, amongst other things, to deteriorating working conditions. I've never heard that take before, but it's a fascinating idea. Unfortunately, I think the problem we've run into in the U.S. is that minimum wage jobs have already hit rock bottom working conditions. Raising the minimum wage is the only thing left to improve conditions for those stuck in…
If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses. What I think would actually happen is (perhaps some job losses, but) more jobs being pushed underground and laws skirted. I'm not against minimum wages or increasing it as such, but if the lowest paid workers are in such dire conditions, the fundamental problem seems to be that they have insufficient bargain…
No, that's just one outcome. I already described another outcome higher up the comment tree: reduction in non-wage benefits.
In practice, you would probably see some combination of outcomes.
> A huge issue has to be illegal immigrant population that largely competes for low wage positions -- I've heard it's estimated about 15 million but could be as high as double that.
The demand curve for labour seems to be nearly horizontal, ie in the longer run more or less labour supplied (almost) doesn't change its price.
> [...] but even champions of labor and the disadvantaged such as Sanders talked about the problem [...]
Are you suggesting that those people who are desperate enough to become nearly right-less illegal immigrants do not count as labour or as disadvantaged?
(I can very well believe that Sanders doesn't care about them, of course.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses. What I think would actually happen is (perhaps some job losses, but) more jobs being pushed underground and laws skirted. I'm not against minimum wages or increasing it as such, but if the lowest paid workers are in such dire conditions, the fundamental problem seems to be that they have insufficient bargain…
> If you're subscribing to orthodox economics then in that case raising minimum wage would result in job losses. No, that's just one outcome. I already described another outcome higher up the comment tree: reduction in non-wage benefits. In practice, you would probably see some combination of outcomes. > A huge issue has to be illegal immigrant population that largely competes for low wage positions -- I've heard it'…
I was not replying to you. I asked the posted who claimed that benefits had already hit a floor. I was responding to his supposition.
> Are you suggesting that those people who are desperate enough to become nearly right-less illegal immigrants do not count as labour or as disadvantaged?
No I'm not suggesting that. Seems pretty accusatory and not really in good faith, unless you can explain how on earth I might have been reasonably misinterpreted as suggesting it.
You can advocate for and advance your own interests or the interests of your voters and constituents first without being subject to these stupid witch hunts. Everybody does it, even you. I don't go around accusing you of not caring about poor people or refugees because you have failed to sell all your belongings and donate your wealth to the less fortunate as well as your income except that which you need to barely keep yourself alive.
We are talking about wages in the USA, and massive downward pressure on low skilled labor comes from illegal immigrant workers. If you can't cope with this or debate it rationally then that's your problem not mine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I certainly don't buy that your car is freedom trope sold to our parents to buy the latest car back in the sixties. Most cars are dailies and only ever drive between home, work, store ad nauseum. So the rosy tinted idea that cars are freedom just means more traffic, complaining about fuel, complaining about tires, complaining about insurance, and the forgetful fact that humans are driving around a metal and plastic b…
Cars were my freedom. People live different lives, you know? Did you drive 100+ miles, one way, for epic parties when you were in high school? I did. That's how rural Arkansas works. My first tech job required me to go 130 miles one way for months before I could afford my own place and move closer. How would I have done that with your rules?!
Or a train.