If anyone would care to read the article it’s more about companies making more high end cars and running low stocks than making cars bigger. They reduced stock during the pandemic and discovered that they can make more money selling fewer cars with maxed out specs than a lot of base models. They simply don’t have base models on stock now and people still have to buy cars so profits are soaring. Basically they made everyone depend on cars by killing public transport and are now milking it hard. Because what are you going to do? Work from home?
Good thing China isn’t ready to flood the market with millions of cheap electric cars. This short term profit is going to end up biting them in the ass real quick. Although I guess they know they’ll just get bailed out, so there’s no reason to innovate.
Not to worry: protectionism will take take of the competition. Just like they did with the Japanese manufacturers…
Most of those Chinese cars wouldn’t meet US safety regs. Getting them up to that level would put them closer to cost parity.
They sell them in the EU, which has stricter safety regulations. If they set out to do it, they’ll flood the market and get the traditional manufacturers in trouble.
My biggest worry is that once/if the Chinese make cars “good enough for the US market”, all car companies lobby for worse consumer protections since those regulations no longer keep new competitors out of the market.
Oh hey almost exactly like the housing issue… Greedy fucking companies realized they made more making McMansions than starter houses so no one makes reasonable houses anymore and we’re all stuck trying to buy 4+ bedroom overpriced shit…
There’s no way this could be bad for society at large especially when driving is pretty much mandatory outside of cities. Nah, it couldn’t be bad because it’s good for corporations. Not that anyone cares. Externalities is just a fancy word…
Remember: can’t afford life? Move to a low cost of living area and drive 2 hours to work! …wait…
That’s going to break down when Starbucks in San Francisco/etc. can’t find workers because the cost to drive 20 miles to work is greater than what they’re being paid. That day when low-paying big city jobs disappear because no one can afford to get there and work there is coming very fast.
It’s already here. They aggressively recruited among the higher middle class urban kids and poverty kids who can use mass transit. And now they have a very stubborn union movement.
Remember: can’t afford life? Move to a low cost of living area and drive 2 hours to work! …wait…
The article even mentions some research that in the suburbs people with cars tend to get better jobs.
That’s a lot of words to say “Cartel”. Car…tel… get it?
I’m here all day, folks! 👍
Here’s a hint: the automakers are doing great. By essentially coordinating an industry-wide production cut, the pandemic gave manufacturers power to demand mind-boggling prices for fewer cars, leading to record profits. As consumers adjusted their expectations, executives saw an opportunity to establish a lucrative new normal. Low inventory is an “opportunity to drive strong margins”, GM’s CEO, Mary Barra, told shareholders in 2022. Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, went even further, declaring: “I want to make it extremely clear to everyone: we are going to run our business with a lower day supply than we have had in the recent past because that’s good for our company.”
Also see: collusion… market manipulation… fauxflation.
Yet another point in the argument for a government corporation that makes basic shit and provides basic services across the board.
I’ve noticed this trend in other businesses, as well.
They’ve realized it’s more profitable to screw over fewer people harder than it is to try to appease more customers with better deals. The most notable example of this to me would be the fast food industry.
It’s a win-win, because they get to expend fewer resources due to fewer customers and they make more money with each transaction.
Fuck greed and anyone who supports it.
Oh hey almost exactly like the housing issue… Greedy fucking companies realized they made more making McMansions than starter houses so no one makes reasonable houses anymore and we’re all stuck trying to buy 4+ bedroom overpriced shit…
There’s no way this could be bad for society at large especially when driving is pretty much mandatory outside of cities. Nah, it couldn’t be bad because it’s good for corporations. Not that anyone cares. Externalities is just a fancy word…
Remember: can’t afford life? Move to a low cost of living area and drive 2 hours to work! …wait…
To extend and clarify a bit, if you want a base model they don’t have, you have to pay a delivery fee. At which point you might as well buy the higher trim on the lot.
Repeal CAFE standards, or just delete the entire catagory of “light truck”. If it doesn’t have a bed, its not a fucking truck. This entire fucked situation is literally just automakers not wanting to be bothered to make fuel efficient cars when you can call everything a fucking truck and be mostly exempt from having to comply with the far stricter regulations around smaller passenger vehicles MPG standards.
And the automakers give zero shits since they make so much more selling these larger utterly pointless vehicles rather than smaller, more economical ones.
tax light trucks heavily unless the owner can prove they use it for business purposes, like construction or farming
Light trucks is kinda a crazy category. It’s lighter vehicles that
(1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle, or (2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (3) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use
Vans, minivans, SUVs, and crossovers are mostly categorized as light trucks. Most vehicles on the road are light trucks; they outsell cars right now 3 to 1
Not to “make rules for me” but I do think minivans should get a category of some kind - it puts all it’s points in function, and none in sport/SUV, is the most efficient user of space, and generally reasonable hood height. Plus I’m not buying one to brag or strut my stuff.
They did change up the rules for trucks in 2011 following the PT cruiser getting classified as a truck, but they made it worse.
Now CAFE standards are based on vehicle footprint, which encourages giant vehicles. It also killed the small truck category of vehicles, which is why a Ranger today is the size of an F-150 from before, and an F-150 is the size of a small moon.
On the plus size, it’s also why the base-model engine on the Maverick is the hybrid with the traditional engine being the “upgrade.”
Maybe it’s my interest in economics, but American life is so expensive in part because Americans are willing to spend a shit ton of money because they think they’re supposed to. It’s like we’re all enamored with the idea that bigger and more is better just because someone said so. And then we complain about things being unaffordable like corporations aren’t trying to fleece us for all we’re worth.
I’ve heard it said that Americans purchase based on the maximal use case as opposed to the typical use case. As an American, that description makes so much sense. As an example, I live in an area where there are a lot of hills and it snows rarely, but just about everyone who can afford a 4WD SUV has one. Heaven forbid they can’t drive around on those 1-2 days a year that it snows! Meanwhile, they get shitty gas mileage driving to work the other 300-odd days of the year.
The maximal use case! That’s a good way of thinking about it!
I’m struggling with my SO to buy a reasonable house in a high cost of living area. They want a massive 2000 Sq ft monstrosity because we plan to have a kid soon, and I’m thinking 1500 is more than enough. They’re reasoning it’s we need space for each other and entertaining. My reasoning is I want to eat out at the nearby fantastic restaurants nearby more often and buy cheese and wine and stuff.
The more walkable the location of the house, the less space you need because that space is outside your house.
I had to use a unit converter, but I’ve lived in places housing up to seven people that weren’t that big. Comfortably.
This is a conversation I had here recently as well when I pointed out to a car thread that for the money Americans pay for pickup trucks you can also buy a hatchback and a proper van, cover most use cases and not drive a tank to take kids to school. They did NOT like that.
We have two kids in a 3 bed/2 bath 1350 sq ft home. We do have a full basement, but the kids aren’t really allowed down there (power tools, toy stash, etc). I guess I do hang out there some nights, but that’s only because my gaming computer moved downstairs years ago when our oldest started to be able to reach the keyboard and pull key caps off it.
In our experience, you’re probably not going to do a lot of entertaining while you have young kids. While one of your kids is under 3-4, and sometimes older, they’re going to need naps. They’re also going to have early bedtimes. Naps are mostly behind us, and we do have afternoon play dates, but the kids don’t really care what space they’re in as long as they’re engaged and have things to do. Having an adult gathering is… very rare. We have a nice sized yard, so we tend to have gatherings outside.
I don’t think we need extra bedrooms or bigger bedrooms/bathrooms. An office might be nice, but working from the basement works just as well. A toy room could be nice, but to me it would be wasted space as the kids get older and have fewer, but larger/more engaging, toys. At least around here, the extra room comes with extra walls that result in a space that’s not often used (think a formal dining room).
There’s also the financial side of things. We could afford a larger house, but would rather be putting any extra into 529s, our own 401ks, etc. Kid related expenses really add up before you start also thinking about a bigger mortgage payment.
Ok. We raised 4 kids in an 1800 sq foot house with one bathroom. I do not recommend the one bathroom, but the space was more than adequate.
Having said that, it does make a difference, we have the same size house now and only 2 kids left at home, but this house has a bigger main kitchen/dining area, smaller bedrooms, a separate living room for the kids, an enormous back porch/deck adding to the useable space and entertaining space is really helpful more than I had imagined.
1500 arranged right with small bedrooms and enough common area, and at least 2 bathrooms sure. It’s not a small house, that’s a medium size house. With an enormous porch? Hell yeah. We used to live in one of those with two other couples, it was fine. But I do think you are undercounting the value of common space.
On cars I agree wholeheartedly. It’s way too expensive to maintain that capacity. We rent a minivan to travel but buy small car for daily use.
House I am not convinced, the value proposition is different. It really is nice to have a little extra space. Not some monstrous McMansion, but not cozy, and space for the kids to have their gaming computer stuff not inside their bedroom and my home office stuff not inside my bedroom. And moving is a pain in the ass and expensive, absolutely don’t want to have to scale up if the family gets bigger.
It’s the issue of “but sometimes”. People want to use a worse solution because the better solution has an issue that happens only rarely.
I’m always blown away seeing these blue collar guys driving around these $50-80k trucks that probably get 8 mpg. How do they afford this?
Also some of them are paid very well. Any of your unionized specialty trades can easily make $150k+ a year, especially if they’re willing to travel or work a lot of OT. If you’re single or married with no kids, you can pretty easily afford a big fancy truck like that.
If you’re willing to travel that can be more than $50k a year in per diem pay, so in two years you can easily pay off a new trailer to live in and a nice truck to haul it with. I personally know people who have done exactly this. The catch is that you need to get into a good union and do your apprenticeship and generally have your shit together. It always surprises me that more people don’t know this.
Loan on a $50k vehicle is $1000-$1500/month depending on loan term. It’s likely $80 minimum every time you refuel too.
Yes, I’ve been trying to get the idea across to people to spend less instead of making more.
They just don’t get it, and I think that’s by design.
These problems won’t get solved until our culture changes. It won’t change until enough people feel disenfranchised.
In other words, it’ll get worse before it gets better. Blame every poor person who believes the disparity in wealth should grow instead of shrink.
Stop buying SUVs and expensive cars!
How else will I feel superiority to others just because I spend more money than them?
Seems like this would be a good time for foreign car companies to take advantage of the US automakers entrenched positions again like Japan did in the 1970s.
Would that work? Most people Americans wouldn’t want to be found dead in a car that isn’t showing off hoe big their penis really really is.
If they sold a new car cheaper than the standard used car and actually had stock yeah if you build them people would come … buy them.
