Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New cars are just for rich people now

jalopnik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#121

Post by pandaman »

danielvaughn wrote: post #53

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 e…

Even if there had been demand for a car without basic features people got used to in the past 20 years or so (central locks, power windows, rain-sensing wipers etc.) it would not work because of the emission requirements. The engines that meet the requirements all run software in order to work. Ditto for the required safety features: backup cameras, anti-lock brakes, ESC etc.

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#122

Post by a_subsystem »

jonathankoren wrote: post #101
a_subsystem wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the government prints more money, all money loses value.

A trite response that doesn't comport with the available evidence of today's economy. But hey, faith-based economics drives the world.

Not sure what you're suggesting. Also,

>> doesn't comport with the available evidence of today's economy.

it doesn't?

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#123

Post by jonathankoren »

a_subsystem wrote: post #122
jonathankoren wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A trite response that doesn't comport with the available evidence of today's economy. But hey, faith-based economics drives the world.

Not sure what you're suggesting. Also, >> doesn't comport with the available evidence of today's economy. it doesn't?

It helps when you actually read the comment you respond to, instead of knee jerk a bumper sticker.

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#124

Post by throw0101b »

Spark_Ed wrote: post #18
tdba wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_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 b…

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.

> […] you must operate in the interests of the shareholders and not the customer or your employees.

This is a legal myth:

> The case still most often used in law schools to illustrate a director’s obligation is Dodge v. Ford Motor (1919)—even though an important 2008 paper by Lynn A. Stout explains that it’s bad law, now largely ignored by the courts. It has been cited in only one decision by Delaware courts in the past 30 years.

* https://hbr.org/2010/04/the-myth-of-shareholder-capitalism

The Stout paper, "Why We Should Stop Teaching Dodge v. Ford":

> This Essay argues that Dodge v. Fordis indeed bad law, at least when cited for the proposition that the corporate purpose is, or should be, maximizing shareholder wealth. Dodge v. Ford is a mistake, a judicial "sport," a doctrinal oddity largely irrelevant to corporate law and corporate practice. What is more, courts and legislatures alike treat it as irrelevant. In the past thirty years, the Delaware courts have cited Dodge v. Ford as authorint in only one unpublished case, and then not on the subject of corporate purpose, but on another legal question entirely.15

* https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/724/

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#125

Post by foogazi »

lapcat wrote: post #57
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I gave up on the idea of a Toyota Corolla Hybrid ($23K) when they said there was an 8 month wait list for one.

How long ago was that ?

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#127

Post by candiodari »

ramesh31 wrote: post #44
ftxbro wrote: post #3

> "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 t…

>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 mod…

... 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...

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.

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#128

Post by danielvaughn »

6510 wrote: post #100
danielvaughn wrote: post #53

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 e…

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.

This is the only comment that seems to get at what I was talking about. I'm just saying that software is prone to error, it shouldn't be used for critical internal components in vehicles.

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#129

Post by 6510 »

danielvaughn wrote: post #128
6510 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is the only comment that seems to get at what I was talking about. I'm just saying that software is prone to error, it shouldn't be used for critical internal components in vehicles.

When you no longer have to worry about killing people development gets much easier. It will just take a different direction.

Re: New cars are just for rich people now

#130

Post by a_subsystem »

jonathankoren wrote: post #123
a_subsystem wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what you're suggesting. Also, >> doesn't comport with the available evidence of today's economy. it doesn't?

It helps when you actually read the comment you respond to, instead of knee jerk a bumper sticker.

From your linked article:

>> the idea that firms are capitalizing on their market power by raising their prices higher and faster than the growth in their production costs.

You think this is a plausible explanation in a competitive capitalist economy rather than the problem being trillions of dollars having been printed which devalues all money which makes prices go up which makes the corporations look like they made record profits because you HAVE to charge more money because all money is worth less and every input costs more? I'm not saying they didn't necessarily make record profits, btw, but if they did then good on them and that smells like a blood in the water type of business opportunity.

Post reply on HN