←back to thread

The $25k car is going extinct?

(media.hubspot.com)
319 points pseudolus | 4 comments | 29 Jun 25 15:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.814s | source
Show context
tlogan ◴[30 Jun 25 12:49 UTC] No.44422630[source]▶
This is a great example of how factually incorrect narratives - so long as they align with a preferred agenda (which is that things are not affordable any more) - it gets upvoted.

Reality check:

- In 2025, there are 12 new car models available under $25,000

- In 2005, there were around 10 new models under $15,000 (25k adjusted by inflation)

So the premise that “cars used to be much more affordable” is not true. This article is full of misleading or outdated information that distorts the real trend.

HN deserves better data-driven discussions.

replies(17): >>44422669 #>>44422707 #>>44422749 #>>44422885 #>>44422919 #>>44423014 #>>44423067 #>>44423538 #>>44423622 #>>44423626 #>>44423874 #>>44423904 #>>44423959 #>>44424442 #>>44425246 #>>44425626 #>>44430456 #
1. monkeyelite ◴[30 Jun 25 14:12 UTC] No.44423538[source]▶
- boomers like classic sports and muscle cars. They feel nostalgia towards them because those are the cars high school and college kids used to actually drive

- people who are looking for affordable cars buy used. That market has evaporated. I remember in the late 90s-2000s the newspaper had a junker section where you could get cars (that started) for $100. Imagine what you could get for $2000

- when inflation goes up you lose savings and don’t necessarily get a corresponding wage increase. So just saying it’s equal according to inflation does not mean it’s equal in terms of work hours or job training requirements

replies(1): >>44424673 #
2. slackfan ◴[30 Jun 25 15:44 UTC] No.44424673[source]▶
Cash for Clunkers was a hell of a program.
replies(1): >>44425183 #
3. monkeyelite ◴[30 Jun 25 16:33 UTC] No.44425183[source]▶
I have been thinking more about that recently. It’s very strange we convinced ourselves we were being economically efficient while destroying productive resources.
replies(1): >>44425530 #
4. bigfishrunning ◴[30 Jun 25 16:59 UTC] No.44425530{3}[source]▶
Not everyone was convinced -- it was pretty transparently 1) a subsidy to the car industry 2) an effort to hasten the proliferation of in-car surveillance tech