←back to thread

The $25k car is going extinct?

(media.hubspot.com)
319 points pseudolus | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
snovymgodym ◴[] No.44414559[source]
It's pretty simple (in the US, can't speak for elsewhere).

There are 2 big factors at play:

1. Margins. Manufacturers make huge margins on expensive vehicles and very slim margins on cheap vehicles. The numbers differ, but I think even in the lead up to the 2008 crisis automakers had to sell 5-10 "econobox" cars to make the profit they made on one luxury car, SUV, or truck.

2. Normalization of debt. For many Americans, having a monthly car payment in perpetuity is considered acceptable. Car loans have their place and can be used responsibly, but due to marketing, sales tactics, and cultural sensibilities what often ends up happening is that people start from a monthly dollar amount and then work forwards to buy the most expensive vehicle they can, even if it means taking the loan term out to 72 or 84 months. It's also very normal for people to never pay off their car, instead trading in the vehicle after 3-5 years and rolling equity in the loan over to their next car. Obviously, this consumer habit is great for dealers, manufacturers, creditors and buyers of consumer debt, as well as the US Government and investors -- it's just not ideal for the consumers themselves if they're trying to preserve wealth and build savings.

These two factors create an environment increasingly hostile to the cheap entry level car. Consumer demand is low since most don't spend responsibly, and automakers don't really want to make or sell them because the margins are so slim.

replies(8): >>44415022 #>>44415542 #>>44418250 #>>44418936 #>>44419132 #>>44419293 #>>44420084 #>>44422027 #
msgodel ◴[] No.44415542[source]
>having a monthly car payment in perpetuity is considered acceptable.

I think that really depends on what part of America. At least where I grew up around a bunch of middle class conservatives listening to eg Dave Ramsey (who has other problems IMO) most people think of you as reckless/irresponsible for doing that sort of thing.

replies(3): >>44418382 #>>44418595 #>>44418666 #
aprilthird2021 ◴[] No.44418382[source]
I grew up around a bunch of middle class conservatives in the Southern USA and almost all of them were into debt on house, car, often even taking loans to pay for kids private school.

And you'd never know until the family divorced and their lifestyle drastically decreases.

Dave Ramsey has to be relatively new because debt was extremely extremely common among conservatives in the US (no idea about liberals didn't live among them)

replies(3): >>44418455 #>>44418551 #>>44419075 #
SJC_Hacker ◴[] No.44418455[source]
Houses are debt, but are generally and appreciating asset

Cars are a depreciating asset. It usually does not make sense to go into debt to get one

replies(3): >>44418596 #>>44418753 #>>44418866 #
darth_avocado ◴[] No.44418753{3}[source]
Cars are a necessity in pretty much most of the country. Even in areas with good public transit, people who are most likely to go into debt to buy a car are also more likely to live further away from public transit and commute for work. Outside of New York, I can’t think of another city where living without a car is really an option.
replies(2): >>44418952 #>>44419084 #
tacticalturtle ◴[] No.44419084{4}[source]
Boston. DC. Chicago.

I’ve heard Philly and SF as well, but have never been.

replies(3): >>44419129 #>>44419473 #>>44422302 #
1. darth_avocado ◴[] No.44419129{5}[source]
Bay Area (including SF) public transportation is generally terrible, definitely not at all a great option for people who can’t even live in SF but have to commute to SF because of how expensive it is.
replies(1): >>44419365 #
2. throwaway2037 ◴[] No.44419365[source]
San Francisco is in the top 10 cities in the US for public transit usage. You can see the stats here: https://www.sf.gov/data--vision-zero-benchmarking-commute-me...

If you are forced to commute into SF for your job, then make living close to BART a top priority. (Many years ago, I met many people who suffered through that daily commute, but refused to make living near BART a priority. It was dumb to watch.) BART is a miracle train system (hybrid commuter rail/metro/subway), even if the coverage isn't great.

replies(2): >>44419476 #>>44423115 #
3. darth_avocado ◴[] No.44419476[source]
Just because it’s in top 10 within the country doesn’t mean it is great and that people don’t need to rely on cars most of the times. “Just live near BART” is a laughable proposition since half the BART stations outside of SF do not have enough housing around them and the ones that do, have high density luxury apartments that aren’t exactly affordable to people outside tech and other high paying careers. Then there’s the question of “do I also work near BART?”, “buy groceries near bus stations?” Or “go to the hospital only near public transit?”. Answer to all of those questions is “No and I still need a car”.
4. amluto ◴[] No.44423115[source]
Or Caltrain. The new electrified Caltrain is a massive improvement: it runs at least every half hour all day, every day. I don’t know whether it was intentional on the part of the agency, but they stumbled upon the obvious phenomenon that many people will not use a transit system that runs too infrequently and that, conversely, if you have infrequent trains with low ridership, your ridership might return if you increase frequency.
replies(1): >>44430492 #
5. throwaway2037 ◴[] No.44430492{3}[source]
Most of the people I knew lived in East Bay, but you raise a great point! The peninsula also has insufferable car traffic, but can be avoided during daily commutes by carefully planning your home around Caltrain.