Maybe something to do with the dealers dramatically inflating prices beyond list? Or maybe the mfg going along with it, increasing base prices so they get a bigger cut of the inflated pricing?
I mean, electrics are more expensive to produce, but I really don't buy that they aren't overpriced.
Electric cars are not intrinsically more expensive.
Because EVs are simpler mechanically they will be cheaper to make than ICE cars once the battery packs get cheap enough. It is an ever-descending cost as the technology improves and the volume goes up.
I agree that greedy Ford dealers helped cause this problem. I looked at the Ford Mach-E but was turned off by dealer markup, got a Tesla instead.
> Electric cars are not intrinsically more expensive. Because EVs are simpler mechanically they will be cheaper to make than ICE cars once the battery packs get cheap enough.
This is nonsense, because the battery packs are already cheap enough. The value of savings from cheap battery packs is simply not being passed on to the end consumer, because the car companies and dealerships can get away with not doing so.
It doesn't matter if Ford or Tesla builds battery packs for $90/KWh and the engine is 2x cheaper than the ICE car, if later on it is marked up appropriately to be sold as a luxury good.
NONE of the battery packs in current EVs cost more than $10000 to make, for ANY manufacturer. Which means they are pricing the econoboxes that contain the batteries at $30,000, which is ridiculous.
The dealers are often up-charging MORE for fuel efficient hybrids or EVs. It might be 2-5k more for a gas burner, but you get nailed 10k over MSRP for the hybrid or EV option.
They're effectively making you pay the difference in the cost of gasoline up front so there's no economic incentive to the consumer to get the better MPG or emission-free option.
I haven't done the math but intuitively it seems like you end up pre-paying the difference you'd save by using less to no gasoline.
I think part of it is also that dealers / manufacturers are creatively trying to capture tax incentives as well. Instead of the consumer getting a cheaper EV via tax breaks, the dealer or manufacture charges that much more and it ends up in their pocket.
It's messed up. Just about every large business in America is on the government teat in various creative ways. They're not innovating or competing anymore.
> They're effectively making you pay the difference in the cost of gasoline up front so there's no economic incentive to the consumer to get the better MPG or emission-free option.
A different way to look at it: the dealers are trying to make you pay for the difference in oil changes and maintenance costs. EVs don't need regular oil changes and service checkups. For many dealers those services are their actual bread-and-butter where they make the most profit.
Ah yes, the battery which is the most expensive part that also determines range doesn't make the car more expensive. Let's the poors have a 1kWh battery.
Ford should go direct. Lobby for changing the law to get rid of these parasites.
I just bought a ford less than a year ago. One of those Maverick trucks since the gas mileage is really good. It's a good suburban truck for hauling or camping that still lets you commute to the city and navigate tight spaces.
The hybrids were actually marked up the worst, often 10k rather than 5k, and couldn't have AWD which was one of my requirements.
I saw Lightning trucks going upwards of 40k over list. It was ridiculous, definitely won't be buying anything from that company any time soon. I think the dealers are entrenched middle men and it's time for more competition all around.
I don't think adding a massive Lithium-Ion battery pack is less expensive than an ICE engine. Not even considering the scarcity and environmental cost of said battery packs at current production levels, which would only increase at scale.
It doesn't just remove the need for an ICE engine, also the gearbox, fuel pump, fuel tank, radiator, exhaust system including catalytic convertor, etc.
An ICE engine is intrinsically complex to make, has many moving parts that wear out, is hot because it is inefficient at turning fuel into power. Plus, you know, the pollution.
A battery pack that holds sufficient joules is not intrinsically large and expensive any more than a 100 megabyte disk had to be the size of a washing machine and cost as much as a house, which was once the case.
Battery packs, even with current technology, cause little to no environmental damage, that is oil industry propaganda. Lithium and cobalt are fairly common, and all the cobalt we would ever need is accidentally produced as a side-effect of copper and nickel mining all over the world, that we would be doing anyway.
In other countries you can order the exact car you want. In the U.S., dealers make that incredibly difficult unless you agree to pay a huge premium. That alone is worth the abolishment of dealerships. Not to mention the time you waste haggling on price.
A car salesman in the U.S. will try to sell you a trim you didn't want. They'll sell you a color you didn't want. They'll sell features you didn't want. All because that's what their current inventory dictates.
Here's a question for all the free-market enthusiasts:
If the car dealer model is supposedly so great for both sides, then why didn't it spawn organically? Why did it require special regulation to bring it into existence? Wouldn't the free market forces have done this on their own?
The current model in the U.S. is insanity and I can't understand how anyone whose job doesn't depend on it, defends it.
Tesla maintains a 30% profit margin vs the 5% profit margin of other automakers.
The car dealership model of course inserts another middleman markup and other bullshit, but direct to consumer doesn't prevent profitinflation, and we saw just that in other sectors with the mass profitinlation the last 2 years.
I think that is the crux of many tragedies to come. Our tastes, standards, and expectations are unsustainable. Single family dwellings. Non-local foods out of season. Things will have to adjust.
I'm not saying it as a campaign promise, I'm saying it as an uncomfortable truth for us who think about these things. How to sell it to the public is PR's job.
There's not always a happy option when you've ignored a problem for a hundred years.
Sometimes the option is a self induced stick, or a way bigger stick from something else that you don't get to choose.
It's rank entitlement to believe you personally should never have to change anything to make the world a better place. IMO this is a huge reason why the younger generations have been worthless at doing government things. The Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney situation proved that average consumers can absolutely still affect big businesses in a way that leads to uncomfortable discussions with shareholders, you just have to be willing to settle for a different product.
Meanwhile plenty of gay people and people who believe gay people deserve equal rights still buy a fucking chicken sandwhich from a fast food place that donates to organizations that explicitly exist to fight gay rights, rather than deprive themselves of, once again, a medium quality fried chicken sandwich that you can get from ten other establishments or literally any pub.
Gen Z is being active, and giving me hope that the lack of activity in the generations between boomer and gen Z were an anomaly.
>The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change.
That doesn't counter my claim though. I said that those "politically dead" generations couldn't even manage to stop eating chicken sandwiches from an organization donating to groups that actively campaign against you. That has nothing to do with the old people in congress. These generations explicitly are just terrible at organizing. They are apathetic.
Gen Z, Millenials and Gen X outvoted the Boomers in 2018.
Regarding organization, I have no idea. I would argue we're too busy with the increasing expectations from our jobs and we don't make as much money in terms of purchasing power as people used to.
I'm old enough to remember snail mail being dominant tech for communication. Maybe a fax machine if it's time sensitive but it was more expensive back then so a lot still was mailed. I'm a "elder" millennial, pretty much the oldest you can be without being Gen X.
That extra slowness from "the tech" at the time gave people excuses to slow down a bit, because they had to wait for replies or had to chip away at work differently. Research was a trip to the library if you didn't have the books. The internet didn't have high quality sources yet. If you weren't around your telephone then people couldn't reach you.
Now with cell phones, the internet maturing, and the exponential growth entitlements by investors we're all worked to the bone. If you don't answer the bosses call at 4AM you get a shit performance review. Oh and in spite of record profits this quarter we can't give any raises because the investors want that money.
I'm not sure about GenZ but us Millenials work really hard and have a lot less money to do anything with than our parents did. We're slightly better off than GenX though so I imagine GenX is having a harder time organizing. You need time off and money to be able to organize.
Most folks I know my age haven't taken a vacation in years. We rarely take time off, and often work late or a few hours weekends. Plus we're often working in the cities because of how knowledge and service work eclipsed other kinds of jobs, and the commute takes up to 2 hours out of our day due to congestion and sub-par (compared to worldwide) transit systems.
>I'm not sure about GenZ but us Millenials work really hard and have a lot less money to do anything with than our parents did. We're slightly better off than GenX though so I imagine GenX is having a harder time organizing. You need time off and money to be able to organize.
Horse shit, when our great grandparents fought for labor rights in the twenties, including literally taking up arms and shooting at pinkertons and being shot by pinkertons, they did not take time off to do so!
We are entitled. We continue to accept worse and worse and worse and being squeezed tighter and tighter, because when the local group says "Hey lets go march and do something about this" nobody fucking shows up! These generations have utterly refused to stand up. So yeah, of course our situation is shit, who is going to do something about it?
Wow, what an incredibly tone deaf post. Do you hear yourself? And you dare to speak of equal rights? And entitlement? I mean, who is entitled here?
First, what are "equal rights" for gays? Are they deprived of the same general freedoms that people have? No. That includes violence. No one can be treated that way, including gays. Equal rights mean applying to all. As soon as you speak of "X rights", you're actually speaking of group-specific privileges or perhaps group specific rights. So what exactly is lacking here, because it's been one pro-gay victory after another, and at an accelerated pace. And do try to be a bit rigorous and precise here. I have no time for vague hand-waving or rehashed slogans. I am not interested in hearing about how some group is or isn't treated despite what the law requires. Even if true, that's a problem with respecting rights, not actual having rights or even legal recognition of rights.
Second, talking about chicken sandwiches as an example of oppression is truly absurd. Not only did almost every chicken sandwich chain celebrate pride month, but it's a chicken sandwich. Large corporations on the whole are very pro-gay. Corporations donate a good deal of money to various pro-gay groups and accommodate all sorts of things pro-gay things that are not even legally required to do. You point to the Dylan Mulvaney affair as if it proved how hostile the world is to those who call themselves transgender. You completely miss the point that the very fact that Budweiser even did that proves that corporations are "with it", even corporations that stake their entire brand on appealing to working class Republican types and frat boys. The backlash came as a surprise to them, and this is only possible if you've come to some confident judgement about what is safe to market. Think of all the big box stores like Target where many Americans do their basic shopping, something a bit more important than a chicken sandwich. They were all over Pride Month. That means that if those people want to shop there, they must contribute to pro-gay causes, even if they disagree with them.
The fact is that corporations, and the state, are becoming increasingly hostile and intolerant to those who do not agree with the normalization and promotion of same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. So to scream "equal rights!" is to cry out in pain as you beat your actual victim: those who disagree. The gay lobby has the backing of the regime, and that includes both the state and the private flank, namely, corporate power. Vandalism of such places as churches is on the rise because plenty of private citizens, too, are demonstrating a hatred for such disagreement.
Third, it's one thing to pass reasonable laws to reasonably regulate behavior for the sake of the common good, like banning cigarettes in restaurants (and the common good logically entails respect for bona fide rights). It's another to use coercive pseudo-legal tactics to force people to do what you want. In the example you've given, I dare say you are not only suggesting such coercion, but you are even suggesting its use to force conformity with what is objectively morally wrong. Meaning, I'm not going to pretend to be a moral relativist here, and it's clear neither are you, so let us simply drop the pretense of "neutrality". That bit of theater is no longer workable.
That line is particularly frustrating to me because I'm an American who has never liked or wanted an SUV or crossover. I don't have anything against people who want those kinds of vehicles but I've always been more of a fun coupe kind of guy.
There's already an endless array of electric SUVs and crossovers to choose from. Why can't there be other classes and sizes of vehicles for other needs and tastes?
Because a big company cannot afford to cater to every little taste, because the shareholders will be upset that they didn't just get to pocket that money.
If you want more variety, break up large companies. Hard to do when Toyota, Honda, etc aren't american companies though.
I too hate large vehicles and prefer my tiny hatchback. It's fun, cheap, efficient, easy to drive, easy to park. Why would I ever get something gigantic? If I need to move something big, something that somehow doesn't fit in my car with the seats folded down (people have fit entire bedroom sets in there somehow) I can go rent a truck from home depot FFS.
Investors have been spoiled rotten with hyperbolic growth for several decades.
They feel entitled to very large returns. The executive leadership's job is to give it to them.
Gone are the days of expecting a stable, life-long dividend.
Now if you're not cutting labor costs to the bone and impoverishing your workers, applying shrinkflation strategies, or monopolizing markets and fixing prices, then you aren't able to satisfy your increasingly greedy investors.
Investors have also been allowed to be the tail eating the head of the snake in the US. Since the earliest days of the American car industry many of the biggest, most vocal shareholders have been the car dealers. Ford v Dodge is such a fascinating tale of broken expectations: the Dodge brothers were some of the largest dealers of Ford at the time (before they founded their own car company), as well as some of the bigger shareholders in Ford, and in that court case created the modern notion of "fiduciary duty" to shareholders because they wanted higher dividends from Ford (presumably to help fund their eventual competitor).
Ford v Dodge is a key court-case that still has so many terrible repercussions in modern America, and all because the biggest shareholders in Ford had a strange conflict of interest (that has never been fixed; dealers are still some of the biggest "activist" shareholders of both GM and Ford) and won the battle in the US courts to give themselves more power over company profits (than the company's board and interests like, you know, employees or customers).
I clearly remember the 90s when there were all sorts of fun smaller vehicles from various carmakers. Now that I'm old enough and able to afford to buy a nice car for myself, all of those fun quirky choices have been replaced by this endless sea of crossovers. I have to admit that maybe I am starting to resent crossovers and SUVs at this point.
Moreover, the array of choices in cars (and houses and similar things) is limited by oligopolies able to impose the most profitable form of a commodity rather than catering to a moderate range of tastes. A notable example was when quotas were imposed on Japanese cars, giving the Japanese a strong incentive to increase costs and profits per car - and thus allowing American companies to go back to this approach also. And the size requirements that zoning imposes on houses naturally has to be considered.
As an American who drives a subcompact, I kinda do have something against people who buy an unnecessarily big SUV/truck -- when they hit me, I die and they walk away -- so they feel safer and drive less cautiously than they should.
> Why can't there be other classes and sizes of vehicles for other needs and tastes?
Because U.S. tax incentives for business strongly favor bigger, heavier vehicles.[0] This includes people who use a vehicle less than 100% for business.
All the EPA rules set MPG targets based on historical "fleet" averages of the car model + factored in the wheel base of the car.
Basically, the last 1.5 decades have encouraged automakers to keep increasing the size of cars because it keeps reducing the MPG target they must meet.
Is this... uncommon in the rest of the world? The rest of your comment I understand, and agree with, but a single family home seems pretty reasonable to me - or am I just out of touch?
I know most folks in my neighborhood harbor multi-generations under a single roof, but they are also significantly Indian homes. I always thought that was more likely to be an Indian cultural attribute more-so than a global normality.
Also - does this include apartments/condos? Where does the line get drawn? A small family residing in an 800 sq ft house surely is reasonable (well, surely to me, but I'm fascinated by this comment), but a McMansion is not necessary in any capacity.
I was very lucky to get a hand-me-down Japanese economy car. It was efficient and reliable. But my peers had to spend a lot more on gas and deal with more frequent repairs. The land yachts were expensive to operate because they were made for rich people but cheap to buy because they were out of fashion and not a great deal in the long term.
I'd much rather see us producing low end models that people of modest means can buy new, ones designed for that market.
Will it grow? If the battery packs are trash, there wont be an affordable used car market, as no one is going to drop $10k to replace the pack in a used car.
People might accept a reduced range. I have no use for a range over ~150 miles and I could easily make do with 50 if I had to, so I would gladly buy a car with a "trashed" battery.
Battery packs don't seem to be the problem at all in the used market. The number of used EVs that have entered the market that needed a battery pack replacement is statistically insignificant for most models. In fact, the current argument is that battery packs are "too good": The used market doesn't seem to be growing at the same rate of ICE turnover because of fewer maintenance costs over car lifetime. The median EV owner is keeping their car for 7+ years, which is an incredible jump compared to the historic 3- year first owner lifecycle of ICE.
We are just about past the "early adopters naturally have higher attachment rates" line and there are some interesting questions if the used EV market will always look weirder than the used ICE market.
>The last one is the worst crime. Property Taxes are designed to keep poor people poor...
Most places have a homestead exemption for this very reason. But you're right, it would make more sense to have a progressive property tax rather than a flat rate.
That is different, I believe. Massachusetts excise tax is based on some idea of the value of your vehicle. Registering your new BMW and your beater Pontiac costs the same.
Where I live, property taxes pay for schools, firefighters, libraries, roads, transit, hospitals, recreation, etc. I don't want those services to go away so that money has to come from somewhere.
Why not increase income instead of decreasing spending? There is more than enough money to go around, it's just concentrated in the top 0.1%.
Ford's cars are probably too expensive because they ignored the EV market for a decade and it takes time to scale up production and reduce costs.
> "The big problem for EVs from a price standpoint is that the whole industry has decided that the only way to cater to American tastes is to make their EV fleet out of trucks and SUVs, eliminating the economical sedans that might be affordable."
I'd guess this is because Ford can't profitably make an affordable sedan (they can't do so without losing a lot of money) so they need to make a more expensive vehicle with better margins, Tesla did this too of course - they just had a decade head start while the legacy manufacturers did nothing.
> That's also an outlier, but less than 30k isn't which makes this post somewhat misleading (at best).
I don't disagree that this _isn't_ misleading in a way but it's also important to consider that most EVs are subject to what you said right after:
> Ford's cars are probably too expensive because they ignored the EV market for a decade and it takes time to scale up production and reduce costs.
Notably that Tesla still isn't at a scale of production where walking off the lot with a < $30k vehicle is possible! There usually isn't a lot to walk off of, but its rare that the base model will be available at all!
Most of the cars they are producing are not the base package, and likely will never be. The thing about supply chains here is that the "base model" is a much smaller percentage of actual manufacturing. Most of the time if a manufacturer were to produce 1M units a year, less than 30% will be the very base model. I'm not sure there are clear numbers published anywhere, but you can bet that while the "base model" might seem affordable you're unlikely to find it due to the same supply chain constraints — Tesla would much rather up-sell you to some package above the base model and availability is restricted as-is, so which customers do you think they'll prioritize? Tesla isn't even producing millions of units yet (I think last year was just over 600k?), and this is just a drop in the bucket in the number of cars purchased each year.
> I'd guess this is because Ford can't profitably make an affordable sedan (they can't do so without losing a lot of money) so they need to make a more expensive vehicle with better margins, Tesla did this too of course - they just had a decade head start while the legacy manufacturers did nothing.
They don't "need" to make larger vehicles with better margins, they just prefer to have better margins. A lot of this is a downstream effect of CAFE exemptions on "light trucks," which applies to both SUVs and modern pick-up trucks. I guess my disagreement here isn't that they "can't" make sedans unless you're defining "can't" in terms of "what the shareholders said." We can absolutely regulate these things and it would probably be beneficial to do so.
As for why Tesla isn't making massive trucks? EV physics (weight of batteries vs. amount of energy to move said weight) somewhat preclude this, but counterpoint there is that Tesla is making a truck and wants to be on top of that market. Sedans are in a weird space with EVs since the added weight kind of puts you in a range<->weight arms race. While most people probably don't need as much range as they think they do, you end up picking between the atrocious Hummer EV or a Model 3 (which is still very large for most of the trips you'd take with a sedan!!!).
Well, prices aside, there currently is no Ford SUV. I've been shopping for an EV but the current offerings still don't replace my ancient Ford Escape. Still waiting for the electric version...
Yes, as are most other big brand EVs like Ioniq, Kia's line, etc. But they are still smaller than Escape, not sure if it's a design trend or what. It doesn't seem like there is any inherent constraint in the shape unless it's for air resistance reasons.
Crossover, yet, but it hardly qualifies as an SUV. Its overall profile is closer to a medium size sedan with a hatchback. What was once called a 5-door. If the hatch were more vertical it would be closer to traditional station wagons.
Yes, Ford markets it as an SUV because that terms appeals to a wider market and most people don’t know what a crossover is.
You can't walk off the lot with any Tesla, so Tesla has much less influence on what percentage of its cars are the base model than other brands. You order online so there's no salesman standing over you talking you into unneeded upgrades.
For high-demand products Tesla will offer a better expected delivery date for more expensive vehicles, but Tesla's supply and demand are in balance now and you can get base model deliveries within a couple of weeks.
There are no unneeded upgrades to be had (aside I guess autopilot?).
The experience of buying a Tesla was wonderful. We just couldn't believe how great everything was. Zero pressure. Clear pricing. Simple website. They even registered the car.
> There usually isn't a lot to walk off of, but its rare that the base model will be available at all!
That isn't true for much of the US. The base model 3 is readily available, even in inventory. At the end of the quarter, it is available with discounts as well.
Not only that, but because of the way the battery supply chain works, there are advantages to Tesla for you to buy the base model. The base uses LFP cells, whereas higher trims use 2170s from either NV or imports. Selling the base model in its current config frees up higher energy density cells for higher trims.
>but counterpoint there is that Tesla is making a truck and wants to be on top of that market.
Is this actually true? I know Tesla say they're trying to compete in the truck market, but they also said that full self-driving was less than a year away in 2014, and then again in basically every year since.
Meanwhile, the cybertruck was slated for release in 2021. Ditto the trucks, IIRC.
> ... also average is just a bad metric for affordability
It is definitely better than the outlier you provided as an example. I don't drive a Mercedes-Benz because, on average, any of their models are more expensive than the one I own.
The Model Y numbers are misleading. If we consult the source material [0], it clearly states:
> ... the Tesla Model Y was the most registered new passenger car of March and Q1 2023
Which is not the same as units sold, but units delivered, i.e. one cannot register a car before receiving it. Tesla has built up a massive order backlog until quite recently [1], so it wouldn't surprise me if these deliveries are for orders placed back in 2022.
I agree with you. TBH, 55k is likely also less than the current average selling price of a new F-150. And the F-150 is the best selling vehicle in the US, and has been for a long time.
I read an article (you can probably guess the major media source) that said EVs were expensive because the ASP of a new EV is >$55k, while a compact ICE is only ~25k. Of course comparing the average across all EVs, including $80k trucks to the price of Civic-class vehicles makes no sense.
Also, let's not forget that this situation is what American shareholders "say" they want: neither GM nor Ford today has a "compact ICE" on sale for ~$25k (nor anywhere near that). The two examples commonly given right now, Civic and Corolla, are both Japanese imports.
A lot of these "EVs are not affordable" posts really under the surface are just as much "American car companies are too expensive" and blaming that on EVs is missing what's really going on. (Jalopnik here makes an okay case for one of the reasons why this is happening that American car companies are pricing themselves out of their own market.)
It's why I think the US market is ripe for disruption (thanks, short-sighted GM and Ford shareholders) and one of the importers is going to capitalize it. In my understanding it may be a race between the Korean and Chinese companies on who will be the fastest to market a bunch of cheap EV sedan models in the US.
(It is sad that I can't imagine right now GM or Ford making a "hail mary pass" around their own "activist" shareholders. GM proved with the Bolt that they have a lot of the raw components to do a cheap sedan, and likely when the Bolt restarts it will be their cheapest car across their portfolio, just still not a "compact" sedan. Both have to keep answering to their shareholders and a lot of their shareholders are dealers that like high margins and hate sedans.)
I think that is definitely happening, but it might just be Tesla that does it. Their next wave of products is less than two years away and at least one of the products is clearly focused on cost.
GM seems to have a similar plan for the Bolt, but it is completely possible that they will mess it up again.
Yes, the Bolt is really close and it will be interesting to see what the next model year of it looks like in terms of price (currently estimated that the next Bolt will be 2026).
I'm currently skeptical about Tesla since their well known build quality issues and some sense that maybe they can't scale down cost without cutting corners they shouldn't cut. But yes, Tesla has the easiest position of current major US automakers to deliver something in the near future and even a cheap car with theoretical build quality issues is still more cheap cars on the road.
> First, the argument that electric vehicles are more expensive than comparable combustion cars is somewhat exaggerated. The issue large stems from the decision to electrify only the most profitable and physically largest models. For Ford, that would be the F-150 Lightning and the Mustang Mach-E.
so the argument is correct, in that they are more expensive? so they should make cheaper, smaller electric cars would be the logical next step. electric cars at this point are a luxury item, and saying people cant afford luxury items because they aren't being paid enough is _technically true_ but that is misleading.
maybe they should start blaming poor fiscal policy of the federal government given the govt is meant to look after its people, not automanufacturers.
Electric cars are still a luxury good. I can afford to buy a Tesla Model that equipped with AWD, and auto pilot (for me the marquee feature on the Tesla) comes in at 67,000 before any state & federal incentives.
To put it into perspective - A Toyota 2023 Corolla Hybrid SE Infrared full loaded with AWD will cost me 30K. A Toyota 2024 Camry XSE Hybrid costs $3750 all in with all of the upgrades.
Hard to justify 30K+ more for an electric vehicle - unless that is what you want an are willing to pay for it. But at this point - you can't justify the expenditure at all.
I won't pay 30K for a vehicle in the first place. I drove a Nissan Rogue Select for 6 years before it was totaled on the highway in a rear end collision. For the past two, I've driven a Mitsubishi Outlander Sport.
I paid $32K total because I bought them both with 2 years on them.... and I received $13.5K back from insurance for the Rogue Select that I paid $14K for because of how wild the market was during the height of COVID.
Not sure exactly what buying a $60K vehicle is supposed to do for me. The cars had Airplay, cruise control, and AC. What else am I supposed to want?
Same exact market. I'm just not particular about whether the car is brand new or not, because I only need the following: Android auto, air conditioning, cruise control. Some of the other features like the rear camera are standard, and it's also got heated seats as a plus.
In 2020 I was involved in a rearend accident, but I didn't think much of it because my car was still drivable even though I couldn't use the back door. Insurance company said they were just gonna cut me a random check if I didn't bring the car in to the shop. Apparently there was frame damage at very rear driver side which totaled the vehicle.
So I was in a scramble to buy another car. I had multiple options, both new and used, but my rental was a Mitsubishi Outlander Sport. Loved that car. Anyway, when I set out that morning to buy a new car, I was looking for a NEW car. Talked to a dealership about a $33K special edition SUV with all the bells and whistles. Special color, moon roof, etc. But along the way, I saw a used car dealership and pulled in when I saw they had a bunch of SUVs in the lot. They had the exact same make, model, and color as the car I was driving. I don't do a lot of driving. The car had every single feature I wanted and low miles. So when they told me the price, it was a no-brainer. Picked it up the very next day.
247 miles for the Bolt doesn't feel that shabby to me, you mentioned Camry so I guess you aren't into sub-compacts anyways? The Corolla (a sub-compact) has a range around 500 miles, so it is around .5.
"Full Self Driving" costs 15k, but is really not worth it for most of us.
It can also be rented for $200 a month if you want to see what it is like to be driven around by a really bad uber driver. Which of course, that is something we all want to try. But don't spend $15k on it. :)
(Actually it's interesting to see car prices in the US seem quite high when converted to AUD - e.g. the base Tesla price in the US is supposedly 48k, equivalent to 72.5K AUD, but they're advertised for 66.5K here. In years past I'm fairly sure that wasn't the case, though it's still true that on a PPP basis they're more expensive here.)
Forget auto pilot, I have full self-driving, but only because I bought a secondhand Tesla in a private sale and it was already enabled.
Although FSD is technically impressive, it is not a must-have feature. I have played with it a few times, but to be honest, the car is so much fun to drive that I WANT to do it myself.
Just get a regular 3 or Y, both are great value with the tax rebates floating around now. The money saved on gas, oil changes and dealer servicing soon makes up the difference in cost.
Woooahhhh 50k average? It's never crossed my mind to pay that much. Most of my friends don't own vehicles they paid more than 30k for and that includes a bunch of well-off software engineers.
What's the median or if they exclude top 10% of earners?
Edit:
For a few years now the Chevy Bolt would be the EV I would get if in the market. Ford has nothing comparable but they are, supposedly, thinking about bringing back the Fiesta as an EV. A brand new Bolt can be had for mid 20s.
Not long ago, the price crossed $30k. I was surprised. It seems that it has moved past $50k only in the past few years. TBH, I'm shocked that the average is so high.
The average is rising because dealers are pushing auto loans much longer than the previously usual 5 years. They are feeding people's lack of financial literacy with 7-8 year loans under the idea that you can buy a more expensive car while only focusing on the monthly payment.
Is that the Dacia Sandero? The VW Up! (not Golf, my mistake) is ~15k EUR. My knowledge cutoff transitively only goes up to 2021, so I can't be sure which one you mean, but I am curious.
Copper reserves are insufficient to manufacture even the first generation of EVs.[0] The decarbonized economy will require horses and bicycles (both net zero emissions).
The good news is that reducing solar intensity by 2% would compensate for a doubling in CO2 levels, however (see Manabe and Wetherald 1975).[1,2] I hope governments will not wait too long to act. If a solar shield is not implemented within the next 20 to 30 years, the opportunity to do so may close as a result of generalized collapse.
This is backwards. Vehicle quality has gotten much better, and that means used vehicle quality has gotten much better. Since about 2012, used vehicles have taken over the low end of sales, and now manufacturers in the US are beginning to cede that market to used. For the price of a subcompact, you can get a pickup or SUV with low miles, and Americans prefer larger cars. That’s why average new car price is so high.
This is a beautiful example of history repeating itself.
In the 1960's Japanese cars started to replace the overpriced, low reliability US "Big-3" automakers. Now, after dacades in theUS, the Japanese makers are also slaves to the LUXURY product. They can't imaging selling a vehicle for less than $50K.
In China, an EV "city car" can be bought for < $10K, fully equiped EVs are < $30K.
The US is rpie for these lower cost, higher reliability vehicles, but it seems this time it won't be Japan thats inovating.
After decades of using the cheap Chinese labor force now US industrialists are afraid of the monster they've created, thus the cold war...
If the premise was right then it would mean that the workforce wouldn't even be able to afford gas powered cars either. We know they can afford gas powered cars. Increasing incomes will only make it harder for people to afford EVs. It's a self defeating process. The reason EV's aren't affordable is because batteries and the overall EV manufacturing process has not yet achieved economies of scale. Gas powered cars have many more parts and require more labor to create. The reason they are less expensive is that manufacturers have squeezed out most inefficiencies out of the system including outsize profits. Give EVs time and we'll see them stabilize at a price that most workers can afford. The last thing Ford and such companies want is to make a product only the rich can afford. As vital patents expire and more competitors become part of the manufacturing process we'll see prices come down to a price that's reasonable versus people's income. We have seen it with Tesla. 20 years ago only the very rich could afford Tesla's first car. Recently they introduce a somewhat affordable car. Affordability will continue. Believe in the process, it's just a matter of time.
128 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 191 ms ] threadI mean, electrics are more expensive to produce, but I really don't buy that they aren't overpriced.
I agree that greedy Ford dealers helped cause this problem. I looked at the Ford Mach-E but was turned off by dealer markup, got a Tesla instead.
This is nonsense, because the battery packs are already cheap enough. The value of savings from cheap battery packs is simply not being passed on to the end consumer, because the car companies and dealerships can get away with not doing so.
It doesn't matter if Ford or Tesla builds battery packs for $90/KWh and the engine is 2x cheaper than the ICE car, if later on it is marked up appropriately to be sold as a luxury good.
NONE of the battery packs in current EVs cost more than $10000 to make, for ANY manufacturer. Which means they are pricing the econoboxes that contain the batteries at $30,000, which is ridiculous.
The dealers are often up-charging MORE for fuel efficient hybrids or EVs. It might be 2-5k more for a gas burner, but you get nailed 10k over MSRP for the hybrid or EV option.
They're effectively making you pay the difference in the cost of gasoline up front so there's no economic incentive to the consumer to get the better MPG or emission-free option.
I haven't done the math but intuitively it seems like you end up pre-paying the difference you'd save by using less to no gasoline.
I think part of it is also that dealers / manufacturers are creatively trying to capture tax incentives as well. Instead of the consumer getting a cheaper EV via tax breaks, the dealer or manufacture charges that much more and it ends up in their pocket.
It's messed up. Just about every large business in America is on the government teat in various creative ways. They're not innovating or competing anymore.
A different way to look at it: the dealers are trying to make you pay for the difference in oil changes and maintenance costs. EVs don't need regular oil changes and service checkups. For many dealers those services are their actual bread-and-butter where they make the most profit.
Ford should go direct. Lobby for changing the law to get rid of these parasites.
I just bought a ford less than a year ago. One of those Maverick trucks since the gas mileage is really good. It's a good suburban truck for hauling or camping that still lets you commute to the city and navigate tight spaces.
The hybrids were actually marked up the worst, often 10k rather than 5k, and couldn't have AWD which was one of my requirements.
An ICE engine is intrinsically complex to make, has many moving parts that wear out, is hot because it is inefficient at turning fuel into power. Plus, you know, the pollution.
A battery pack that holds sufficient joules is not intrinsically large and expensive any more than a 100 megabyte disk had to be the size of a washing machine and cost as much as a house, which was once the case.
Battery packs, even with current technology, cause little to no environmental damage, that is oil industry propaganda. Lithium and cobalt are fairly common, and all the cobalt we would ever need is accidentally produced as a side-effect of copper and nickel mining all over the world, that we would be doing anyway.
The car dealership model has been a disaster for the consumer and is nothing short of a racket.
https://www.extremetech.com/cars/tesla-accused-of-secretly-c...
A car salesman in the U.S. will try to sell you a trim you didn't want. They'll sell you a color you didn't want. They'll sell features you didn't want. All because that's what their current inventory dictates.
Here's a question for all the free-market enthusiasts: If the car dealer model is supposedly so great for both sides, then why didn't it spawn organically? Why did it require special regulation to bring it into existence? Wouldn't the free market forces have done this on their own?
The current model in the U.S. is insanity and I can't understand how anyone whose job doesn't depend on it, defends it.
The car dealership model of course inserts another middleman markup and other bullshit, but direct to consumer doesn't prevent profitinflation, and we saw just that in other sectors with the mass profitinlation the last 2 years.
Do you have sources for these figures? Because they look made up to me.
Honda and Toyota are averaging 20% and 17.5% gross margins: https://ycharts.com/companies/HMC/gross_profit_margin https://ycharts.com/companies/TM/gross_profit_margin
Tesla is averaging 21.5%: https://ycharts.com/companies/TSLA/gross_profit_margin
Regardless, Tesla is a unique case in nearly every way so using them as the counter argument against dealerships seems disingenuous.
I think that is the crux of many tragedies to come. Our tastes, standards, and expectations are unsustainable. Single family dwellings. Non-local foods out of season. Things will have to adjust.
Change works much better with carrots than sticks.
Sometimes the option is a self induced stick, or a way bigger stick from something else that you don't get to choose.
It's rank entitlement to believe you personally should never have to change anything to make the world a better place. IMO this is a huge reason why the younger generations have been worthless at doing government things. The Bud Light and Dylan Mulvaney situation proved that average consumers can absolutely still affect big businesses in a way that leads to uncomfortable discussions with shareholders, you just have to be willing to settle for a different product.
Meanwhile plenty of gay people and people who believe gay people deserve equal rights still buy a fucking chicken sandwhich from a fast food place that donates to organizations that explicitly exist to fight gay rights, rather than deprive themselves of, once again, a medium quality fried chicken sandwich that you can get from ten other establishments or literally any pub.
They're more active and more socially responsible. They're voting more than the boomers did at a younger age.
The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change.
>The older generations with their war chests won't let us lead and use their money to ensure things don't change.
That doesn't counter my claim though. I said that those "politically dead" generations couldn't even manage to stop eating chicken sandwiches from an organization donating to groups that actively campaign against you. That has nothing to do with the old people in congress. These generations explicitly are just terrible at organizing. They are apathetic.
Regarding organization, I have no idea. I would argue we're too busy with the increasing expectations from our jobs and we don't make as much money in terms of purchasing power as people used to.
I'm old enough to remember snail mail being dominant tech for communication. Maybe a fax machine if it's time sensitive but it was more expensive back then so a lot still was mailed. I'm a "elder" millennial, pretty much the oldest you can be without being Gen X.
That extra slowness from "the tech" at the time gave people excuses to slow down a bit, because they had to wait for replies or had to chip away at work differently. Research was a trip to the library if you didn't have the books. The internet didn't have high quality sources yet. If you weren't around your telephone then people couldn't reach you.
Now with cell phones, the internet maturing, and the exponential growth entitlements by investors we're all worked to the bone. If you don't answer the bosses call at 4AM you get a shit performance review. Oh and in spite of record profits this quarter we can't give any raises because the investors want that money.
I'm not sure about GenZ but us Millenials work really hard and have a lot less money to do anything with than our parents did. We're slightly better off than GenX though so I imagine GenX is having a harder time organizing. You need time off and money to be able to organize.
Most folks I know my age haven't taken a vacation in years. We rarely take time off, and often work late or a few hours weekends. Plus we're often working in the cities because of how knowledge and service work eclipsed other kinds of jobs, and the commute takes up to 2 hours out of our day due to congestion and sub-par (compared to worldwide) transit systems.
Horse shit, when our great grandparents fought for labor rights in the twenties, including literally taking up arms and shooting at pinkertons and being shot by pinkertons, they did not take time off to do so!
We are entitled. We continue to accept worse and worse and worse and being squeezed tighter and tighter, because when the local group says "Hey lets go march and do something about this" nobody fucking shows up! These generations have utterly refused to stand up. So yeah, of course our situation is shit, who is going to do something about it?
First, what are "equal rights" for gays? Are they deprived of the same general freedoms that people have? No. That includes violence. No one can be treated that way, including gays. Equal rights mean applying to all. As soon as you speak of "X rights", you're actually speaking of group-specific privileges or perhaps group specific rights. So what exactly is lacking here, because it's been one pro-gay victory after another, and at an accelerated pace. And do try to be a bit rigorous and precise here. I have no time for vague hand-waving or rehashed slogans. I am not interested in hearing about how some group is or isn't treated despite what the law requires. Even if true, that's a problem with respecting rights, not actual having rights or even legal recognition of rights.
Second, talking about chicken sandwiches as an example of oppression is truly absurd. Not only did almost every chicken sandwich chain celebrate pride month, but it's a chicken sandwich. Large corporations on the whole are very pro-gay. Corporations donate a good deal of money to various pro-gay groups and accommodate all sorts of things pro-gay things that are not even legally required to do. You point to the Dylan Mulvaney affair as if it proved how hostile the world is to those who call themselves transgender. You completely miss the point that the very fact that Budweiser even did that proves that corporations are "with it", even corporations that stake their entire brand on appealing to working class Republican types and frat boys. The backlash came as a surprise to them, and this is only possible if you've come to some confident judgement about what is safe to market. Think of all the big box stores like Target where many Americans do their basic shopping, something a bit more important than a chicken sandwich. They were all over Pride Month. That means that if those people want to shop there, they must contribute to pro-gay causes, even if they disagree with them.
The fact is that corporations, and the state, are becoming increasingly hostile and intolerant to those who do not agree with the normalization and promotion of same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. So to scream "equal rights!" is to cry out in pain as you beat your actual victim: those who disagree. The gay lobby has the backing of the regime, and that includes both the state and the private flank, namely, corporate power. Vandalism of such places as churches is on the rise because plenty of private citizens, too, are demonstrating a hatred for such disagreement.
Third, it's one thing to pass reasonable laws to reasonably regulate behavior for the sake of the common good, like banning cigarettes in restaurants (and the common good logically entails respect for bona fide rights). It's another to use coercive pseudo-legal tactics to force people to do what you want. In the example you've given, I dare say you are not only suggesting such coercion, but you are even suggesting its use to force conformity with what is objectively morally wrong. Meaning, I'm not going to pretend to be a moral relativist here, and it's clear neither are you, so let us simply drop the pretense of "neutrality". That bit of theater is no longer workable.
There's already an endless array of electric SUVs and crossovers to choose from. Why can't there be other classes and sizes of vehicles for other needs and tastes?
If you want more variety, break up large companies. Hard to do when Toyota, Honda, etc aren't american companies though.
I too hate large vehicles and prefer my tiny hatchback. It's fun, cheap, efficient, easy to drive, easy to park. Why would I ever get something gigantic? If I need to move something big, something that somehow doesn't fit in my car with the seats folded down (people have fit entire bedroom sets in there somehow) I can go rent a truck from home depot FFS.
They feel entitled to very large returns. The executive leadership's job is to give it to them.
Gone are the days of expecting a stable, life-long dividend.
Now if you're not cutting labor costs to the bone and impoverishing your workers, applying shrinkflation strategies, or monopolizing markets and fixing prices, then you aren't able to satisfy your increasingly greedy investors.
Ford v Dodge is a key court-case that still has so many terrible repercussions in modern America, and all because the biggest shareholders in Ford had a strange conflict of interest (that has never been fixed; dealers are still some of the biggest "activist" shareholders of both GM and Ford) and won the battle in the US courts to give themselves more power over company profits (than the company's board and interests like, you know, employees or customers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
Yeah, "it's what 'we' want..." /s
Because U.S. tax incentives for business strongly favor bigger, heavier vehicles.[0] This includes people who use a vehicle less than 100% for business.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_179_depreciation_deduc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MACRS#Special_allowances_and_b...
All the EPA rules set MPG targets based on historical "fleet" averages of the car model + factored in the wheel base of the car.
Basically, the last 1.5 decades have encouraged automakers to keep increasing the size of cars because it keeps reducing the MPG target they must meet.
Well you should! Makes life more fun :)
-Hugh Laurie (https://youtu.be/c-WO73Dh7rY?t=141 @2:21)
Is this... uncommon in the rest of the world? The rest of your comment I understand, and agree with, but a single family home seems pretty reasonable to me - or am I just out of touch?
I know most folks in my neighborhood harbor multi-generations under a single roof, but they are also significantly Indian homes. I always thought that was more likely to be an Indian cultural attribute more-so than a global normality.
Also - does this include apartments/condos? Where does the line get drawn? A small family residing in an 800 sq ft house surely is reasonable (well, surely to me, but I'm fascinated by this comment), but a McMansion is not necessary in any capacity.
The used market will naturally grow, but it will delay adoption.
When I got my first car, the thing many of my peers ended up with is the land yacht: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_yacht_(automobile)
I was very lucky to get a hand-me-down Japanese economy car. It was efficient and reliable. But my peers had to spend a lot more on gas and deal with more frequent repairs. The land yachts were expensive to operate because they were made for rich people but cheap to buy because they were out of fashion and not a great deal in the long term.
I'd much rather see us producing low end models that people of modest means can buy new, ones designed for that market.
But your average american seems to be willing to pay twice as much for gas and buy a truck for whatever reason.
Even $30k is a lot to spend on a vehicle.
And with used cars will come used/refurbished battery packs for less than new ones.
We are just about past the "early adopters naturally have higher attachment rates" line and there are some interesting questions if the used EV market will always look weirder than the used ICE market.
Most places have a homestead exemption for this very reason. But you're right, it would make more sense to have a progressive property tax rather than a flat rate.
https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/which-u-s-states-char...
> Virginia has the highest vehicle taxes, the report found. There, residents pay an effective rate of 4.05%, meaning an annual bill of $1,011.
Why not increase income instead of decreasing spending? There is more than enough money to go around, it's just concentrated in the top 0.1%.
An extreme example: https://electrek.co/2023/07/24/brand-new-tesla-model-3-less-...
That's also an outlier, but less than 30k isn't which makes this post somewhat misleading (at best).
The Model Y was also the top selling vehicle globally across all categories for Q1 2023: https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/26/23738581/tesla-model-y-ev... and in 2022 was the best selling car in the US: https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-y-2022-best-selling-to...
Ford's cars are probably too expensive because they ignored the EV market for a decade and it takes time to scale up production and reduce costs.
> "The big problem for EVs from a price standpoint is that the whole industry has decided that the only way to cater to American tastes is to make their EV fleet out of trucks and SUVs, eliminating the economical sedans that might be affordable."
I'd guess this is because Ford can't profitably make an affordable sedan (they can't do so without losing a lot of money) so they need to make a more expensive vehicle with better margins, Tesla did this too of course - they just had a decade head start while the legacy manufacturers did nothing.
I don't disagree that this _isn't_ misleading in a way but it's also important to consider that most EVs are subject to what you said right after:
> Ford's cars are probably too expensive because they ignored the EV market for a decade and it takes time to scale up production and reduce costs.
Notably that Tesla still isn't at a scale of production where walking off the lot with a < $30k vehicle is possible! There usually isn't a lot to walk off of, but its rare that the base model will be available at all!
Most of the cars they are producing are not the base package, and likely will never be. The thing about supply chains here is that the "base model" is a much smaller percentage of actual manufacturing. Most of the time if a manufacturer were to produce 1M units a year, less than 30% will be the very base model. I'm not sure there are clear numbers published anywhere, but you can bet that while the "base model" might seem affordable you're unlikely to find it due to the same supply chain constraints — Tesla would much rather up-sell you to some package above the base model and availability is restricted as-is, so which customers do you think they'll prioritize? Tesla isn't even producing millions of units yet (I think last year was just over 600k?), and this is just a drop in the bucket in the number of cars purchased each year.
> I'd guess this is because Ford can't profitably make an affordable sedan (they can't do so without losing a lot of money) so they need to make a more expensive vehicle with better margins, Tesla did this too of course - they just had a decade head start while the legacy manufacturers did nothing.
They don't "need" to make larger vehicles with better margins, they just prefer to have better margins. A lot of this is a downstream effect of CAFE exemptions on "light trucks," which applies to both SUVs and modern pick-up trucks. I guess my disagreement here isn't that they "can't" make sedans unless you're defining "can't" in terms of "what the shareholders said." We can absolutely regulate these things and it would probably be beneficial to do so.
As for why Tesla isn't making massive trucks? EV physics (weight of batteries vs. amount of energy to move said weight) somewhat preclude this, but counterpoint there is that Tesla is making a truck and wants to be on top of that market. Sedans are in a weird space with EVs since the added weight kind of puts you in a range<->weight arms race. While most people probably don't need as much range as they think they do, you end up picking between the atrocious Hummer EV or a Model 3 (which is still very large for most of the trips you'd take with a sedan!!!).
https://www.ford.com/suvs/mach-e/
Yes, Ford markets it as an SUV because that terms appeals to a wider market and most people don’t know what a crossover is.
For high-demand products Tesla will offer a better expected delivery date for more expensive vehicles, but Tesla's supply and demand are in balance now and you can get base model deliveries within a couple of weeks.
The experience of buying a Tesla was wonderful. We just couldn't believe how great everything was. Zero pressure. Clear pricing. Simple website. They even registered the car.
That isn't true for much of the US. The base model 3 is readily available, even in inventory. At the end of the quarter, it is available with discounts as well.
Not only that, but because of the way the battery supply chain works, there are advantages to Tesla for you to buy the base model. The base uses LFP cells, whereas higher trims use 2170s from either NV or imports. Selling the base model in its current config frees up higher energy density cells for higher trims.
It's estimated Tesla has a 30% profit margin on the Model 3 meanwhile automakers traditionally were at 5%.
There's alot of overpricing there.
Is this actually true? I know Tesla say they're trying to compete in the truck market, but they also said that full self-driving was less than a year away in 2014, and then again in basically every year since.
Meanwhile, the cybertruck was slated for release in 2021. Ditto the trucks, IIRC.
It is definitely better than the outlier you provided as an example. I don't drive a Mercedes-Benz because, on average, any of their models are more expensive than the one I own.
The Model Y numbers are misleading. If we consult the source material [0], it clearly states:
> ... the Tesla Model Y was the most registered new passenger car of March and Q1 2023
Which is not the same as units sold, but units delivered, i.e. one cannot register a car before receiving it. Tesla has built up a massive order backlog until quite recently [1], so it wouldn't surprise me if these deliveries are for orders placed back in 2022.
[0] https://www.jato.com/tesla-model-y-becomes-europes-best-sell...
[1] https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/27/teslas-order-backlog-ha...
I read an article (you can probably guess the major media source) that said EVs were expensive because the ASP of a new EV is >$55k, while a compact ICE is only ~25k. Of course comparing the average across all EVs, including $80k trucks to the price of Civic-class vehicles makes no sense.
A lot of these "EVs are not affordable" posts really under the surface are just as much "American car companies are too expensive" and blaming that on EVs is missing what's really going on. (Jalopnik here makes an okay case for one of the reasons why this is happening that American car companies are pricing themselves out of their own market.)
It's why I think the US market is ripe for disruption (thanks, short-sighted GM and Ford shareholders) and one of the importers is going to capitalize it. In my understanding it may be a race between the Korean and Chinese companies on who will be the fastest to market a bunch of cheap EV sedan models in the US.
(It is sad that I can't imagine right now GM or Ford making a "hail mary pass" around their own "activist" shareholders. GM proved with the Bolt that they have a lot of the raw components to do a cheap sedan, and likely when the Bolt restarts it will be their cheapest car across their portfolio, just still not a "compact" sedan. Both have to keep answering to their shareholders and a lot of their shareholders are dealers that like high margins and hate sedans.)
GM seems to have a similar plan for the Bolt, but it is completely possible that they will mess it up again.
I'm currently skeptical about Tesla since their well known build quality issues and some sense that maybe they can't scale down cost without cutting corners they shouldn't cut. But yes, Tesla has the easiest position of current major US automakers to deliver something in the near future and even a cheap car with theoretical build quality issues is still more cheap cars on the road.
so the argument is correct, in that they are more expensive? so they should make cheaper, smaller electric cars would be the logical next step. electric cars at this point are a luxury item, and saying people cant afford luxury items because they aren't being paid enough is _technically true_ but that is misleading.
maybe they should start blaming poor fiscal policy of the federal government given the govt is meant to look after its people, not automanufacturers.
To put it into perspective - A Toyota 2023 Corolla Hybrid SE Infrared full loaded with AWD will cost me 30K. A Toyota 2024 Camry XSE Hybrid costs $3750 all in with all of the upgrades.
Hard to justify 30K+ more for an electric vehicle - unless that is what you want an are willing to pay for it. But at this point - you can't justify the expenditure at all.
I paid $32K total because I bought them both with 2 years on them.... and I received $13.5K back from insurance for the Rogue Select that I paid $14K for because of how wild the market was during the height of COVID.
Not sure exactly what buying a $60K vehicle is supposed to do for me. The cars had Airplay, cruise control, and AC. What else am I supposed to want?
You buy a $60K car to signal your wealth. It's why women buy $6K handbags.
In 2020 I was involved in a rearend accident, but I didn't think much of it because my car was still drivable even though I couldn't use the back door. Insurance company said they were just gonna cut me a random check if I didn't bring the car in to the shop. Apparently there was frame damage at very rear driver side which totaled the vehicle.
So I was in a scramble to buy another car. I had multiple options, both new and used, but my rental was a Mitsubishi Outlander Sport. Loved that car. Anyway, when I set out that morning to buy a new car, I was looking for a NEW car. Talked to a dealership about a $33K special edition SUV with all the bells and whistles. Special color, moon roof, etc. But along the way, I saw a used car dealership and pulled in when I saw they had a bunch of SUVs in the lot. They had the exact same make, model, and color as the car I was driving. I don't do a lot of driving. The car had every single feature I wanted and low miles. So when they told me the price, it was a no-brainer. Picked it up the very next day.
I think you missed a zero.
Is there a reason you aren't considering the Leaf or the Bolt?
Was this a typo? There is no way this is true.
Should they be priced out of the economy completely?
You can pay for more.
"Full Self Driving" costs 15k, but is really not worth it for most of us.
It can also be rented for $200 a month if you want to see what it is like to be driven around by a really bad uber driver. Which of course, that is something we all want to try. But don't spend $15k on it. :)
(Actually it's interesting to see car prices in the US seem quite high when converted to AUD - e.g. the base Tesla price in the US is supposedly 48k, equivalent to 72.5K AUD, but they're advertised for 66.5K here. In years past I'm fairly sure that wasn't the case, though it's still true that on a PPP basis they're more expensive here.)
Although FSD is technically impressive, it is not a must-have feature. I have played with it a few times, but to be honest, the car is so much fun to drive that I WANT to do it myself.
Just get a regular 3 or Y, both are great value with the tax rebates floating around now. The money saved on gas, oil changes and dealer servicing soon makes up the difference in cost.
What's the median or if they exclude top 10% of earners?
Edit:
For a few years now the Chevy Bolt would be the EV I would get if in the market. Ford has nothing comparable but they are, supposedly, thinking about bringing back the Fiesta as an EV. A brand new Bolt can be had for mid 20s.
once people have kids the budget goes up for a lot of different reasons.
I bought an 8 year old Golf with over 100k km over 2 years ago and paid around 12k EUR for it, new it was around 32k.
For context this is in the Netherlands, I do believe cars are a bit more expensive here but I can't believe a new Golf would cost 15k anywhere.
To be clear I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I'm genuinely curious if there are such major discrepancies between countries.
The good news is that reducing solar intensity by 2% would compensate for a doubling in CO2 levels, however (see Manabe and Wetherald 1975).[1,2] I hope governments will not wait too long to act. If a solar shield is not implemented within the next 20 to 30 years, the opportunity to do so may close as a result of generalized collapse.
[0] https://press.spglobal.com/2022-07-14-Looming-Copper-Supply-...
[1] http://faculty.eas.ualberta.ca/jdwilson/EAS372_13/manabe75.p...
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Syukuro-Manabe-2/public...
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=17uXw
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/49663329-trading-places-r...
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/12/01/dodge-v-ford-what...
In the 1960's Japanese cars started to replace the overpriced, low reliability US "Big-3" automakers. Now, after dacades in theUS, the Japanese makers are also slaves to the LUXURY product. They can't imaging selling a vehicle for less than $50K.
In China, an EV "city car" can be bought for < $10K, fully equiped EVs are < $30K.
The US is rpie for these lower cost, higher reliability vehicles, but it seems this time it won't be Japan thats inovating.
After decades of using the cheap Chinese labor force now US industrialists are afraid of the monster they've created, thus the cold war...