Throughout the rich world, the young are falling out of love with cars

Because, per my other comment, whether or not they want to/need to own a car, being able to drive one is a pretty essential life skill. If nothing else, if you can't/won't drive, you'll be cut off from a lot of employment opportunities.

> The young are falling out of love with cars because they're unaffordable. It's as simple as that. It's yet another sign the standard of living is declining for the young.

Have you compared to how things used to be? These numbers all seem to assume that it used to be much cheaper relative to income. That seems like a rosy look at the past but the numbers don't support that assumption.

Yes it would be dumb for a young person to pay 47K for a new car! (I'd say it's financially dumb for any person of any age, unless very rich, to pay 47K for a depreciating car.)

Since when do young people (on average) buy new cars? Aside from wealthy families, that was never a thing.

My first car cost $500 in 1988 was 20 years old with the floorboard rusting away so the road was visible through the floor while driving. And a starter that didn't work so it had to be push started every time. That's $1264 in todays dollars. That doesn't buy much, but I see a handful of beaters on craigslist that can be had for that money, and most seem nicer than the rusted beater I bought for $500.

My first new car (nothing fancy, a Mazda) cost 42% of my gross salary at the time.

A Mazda 3 can be had for $23K today, so at a similar price proportion a $55K salary would feel the same as when I bought.

So, none of it feels proportionally more expensive than 30+ years ago.

I think what is different today is the very high end of the market has grown a lot. There are endless cars over 100K whereas back in the 80s the list of hyper-expensive super cars was a very short one. Maybe this twists the perception of the market.

But the basic beater cars and new Toyota/Mazda/Honda/Kia-level cars are about as affordable as they ever were.

And never experienced a severe rent shock or an asshole landlord apparently. I hope that remains the case.

Having been a renter for the last 10 years, I'm sick of landlords dragging their heels on repairs (in one case I had to take a landlord to small claims court) and my monthly rent spiking 6-10% or else going up by a mere 2-3%, forcing me to lock-in longer term leases to save money.

Especially now that the wife and I are in the family formation part of our lives, buying a house in the suburbs is looking more and more attractive. More space, room to do stuff at home, a fixed-rate payment to plan around etc. But I'm assuming that doesn't apply to you at your current stage of life.

From a financial perspective, renting is great for staying relatively mobile, but if you're planning to stay in one place for more than a few years, buying is probably the way to go. Nerdwallet has a good calculator comparing the two with a couple of dozen factors taken into account: https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/rent-vs-buy-calculator

I agree with you that at the end of the day housing is an expense, I'd much rather fund my retirement with stocks. Although once the kids have moved out downsizing might be able to net a few hundred grand more, but that's a decision for 30 years from now.

It certainly helps! But in California (my home) at least neighbourhoods that are walkable and nice often have very expensive homes. We liked South Park, San Diego, but there were almost no homes under $1 million for instance.

And yet, owning and driving a car (especially at the extremely cheap gas prices in the US) is still vastly less expensive than it would be if all the externalities were adequately accounted for. Society is subsidizing car ownership at high levels, and if it doesn’t feel like it – well, that just goes to show how unsustainable personal automobiles are!

(Also, your calculation doesn’t include depreciation, which people don’t often think of as a cost, but economically it absolutely is.)