As a NJ resident, it is good to see that we are doing something that may be a good thing. I am already tired of cars being too expensive with too many unnecessary gadgets while the engines are becoming more plastic.
New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
91–100 of 175 posts
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't they suing California now for having "too strict" of emissions regulations because California's position in the marketplace makes it so that their rules become de facto law of the land? If that goes through, I'm not really sure if California can do really any automotive regulation that other states won't like.
If they can sue someone over growing their own wheat, they can sue over just about anything with even a tenuous link to commercial activity.
Commerce clause has been abused to hell and back.
Peoples heads will fall off if the Supreme Court starts undoing all its prior decisions that rely on it.
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the generic congressional vote , which is simply the percent of people polled who prefer either party. It's analogous to the popular vote for President, not the percent of seats either party is predicted to win.
All the surveys are only of "likely voters". People who live in heavily gerrymandered districts tend to say "I'm not planning on voting". Also a lot of younger people who generally support Democrats aren't even included in the surveys.
If this were generally true, you'd see more polls erring in favor of Republicans. I can't recall any mainstream polling misses that have; do you have any references?
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
Conservative principles are far more popular than the left wing dogma.
Abortion on day of birth Secure boarders Lower taxes and regulations. Personal responsibility vs government handouts Crime Boys in girls sports.
Discus actual issues and many democrats will be shocked they they are in the wrong party.
But hey, endless personal attacks is a strategy as well.
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
Flip that: Democrats focus is on tyranny of the majority so that a few big cities can rule a nation that doesn't want to live by rules that are destroying places like New York and LA.
It's not that we don't care... it's that we know why our system was setup the way it is.
Because only an idiot supports "Pure Democracy" - we don't have pure democracy for many reasons.
You simply don't care to admit those reasons and address the problems with pure democracy.
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
> prevents you from paying for it via a monthly subscription And why in tarnation would I pay monthly for something that has a fixed cost to the manufacturer?
I would happily pay $10/mo for 5 months a year for the 4 years I expected to own the car rather than $250-500 to buy heated seats. I don’t care about someone else’s costs; I care about the value I get and the price I’m asked to pay. If someone else makes a profit because they structure the deal smartly, good for them.
Doesn't seem wise.
a) spend $250-500 to buy heated seats, which you will sell in 4 years with some portion of that $250-500 as a premium added to the sale price of the car, or
b) spend $200 (and the overhead on managing the bill for 4 years) on heated seat rent, and in four years you can sell the option to someone else to pay $10/mo, assuming the company decides to allow that option to be transferred rather than refuse in order to damage the sales of lightly used vehicles.
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#97I think this is great, and though I agree that determining whether there is an "on-going cost to the manufacturer" will be a gray area that automakers will try to game, I think that's a solvable problem. The heated seats example is a great one. There is no reason for this not be a one-time charge. On the other hand, I think it's fair to offer autopilot/"full self driving" on a subscription, or at least the upgrades a…
> The heated seats example is a great one. There is no reason for this not be a one-time charge. if you're referring to BMW, the heated seats are still available as a one time charge. they're just also available as a subscription if you didn't option then upfront. heated seats seem like a weird fit for the subscription model, but as long as the upfront purchase option is reasonably priced, I don't really see the issu…
The issue is you already paid for the heating element in the seats when you bought the car, and you are driving it around as dead weight (however small). You own the heater outright, they are gatekeeping your ability to use it.
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The heated seats example is a great one. There is no reason for this not be a one-time charge. if you're referring to BMW, the heated seats are still available as a one time charge. they're just also available as a subscription if you didn't option then upfront. heated seats seem like a weird fit for the subscription model, but as long as the upfront purchase option is reasonably priced, I don't really see the issu…
The issue is you already paid for the heating element in the seats when you bought the car, and you are driving it around as dead weight (however small). You own the heater outright, they are gatekeeping your ability to use it.
That has nothing to do with subscriptions. The manufacturer could still sell you the car with the heater disabled, make you drive around with the dead weight, and charge you a one-time fee to unlock it. That would be perfectly acceptable under this law.
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't they suing California now for having "too strict" of emissions regulations because California's position in the marketplace makes it so that their rules become de facto law of the land? If that goes through, I'm not really sure if California can do really any automotive regulation that other states won't like.
If they can sue someone over growing their own wheat, they can sue over just about anything with even a tenuous link to commercial activity.
Filburn grew wheat for sale and in excess of the production controls, intending to profit from the wheat he sold while also maintaining his own supply.
The connection to interstate commerce was based on the totality of the wheat he grew, not just the excess portion of it that he claimed wasn't part of interstate commerce. And notably, despite all FUD to the contrary, subsistence farming of wheat for personal/non-commercial consumption was legal at the time. That's why they had there was a threshold in the first place; to protect non-commercial wheat farming.
Re: New Jersey legislators aim to ban most in-car subscriptions
#100I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand the idea of subscriptions for components that are physically present in the car and don't require ongoing cost by the manufacturer to support them is annoying. On the other hand I think that there could be some advantages to that model. The costs of cars seem to going up considerably because of all the advanced features. If it is possible to standardize some of the manufactu…
I challenge you to find a single example of introducing subscriptions reducing costs
[deleted]