Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When Irma hit Florida, people left their homes behind and drove off with their cars. It wasn't the other way around.
That would have been interesting to see people moving their houses, the interstates clogged with wide-loads (after the weeks of prep to get the house up ON the trailers).
People evacuated THEMSELVES, with the tool that made the most sense. Life being the most valuable commodity.
*shrug* Seems like you're an OP who can only see the world in one way. I'm sorry for you in that respect as some of the best things I've experienced in life were a result of shifting my perception, my viewpoint... having empathy. Cars/engines Are complex in design, but anyone with the desire can make one in their garage, from the rough castings on up. In fact, if you'll go search Youtube I think you'll find a few videos where people do just that (in 1:8 and 1:12 scales, same effort and sometimes more due to size).
The major North American manufacturers of vehicles for the private, civilian market turn out each unit for under three dozen man-hours. That includes assembly of components, such as engine and transmission.
Building a typical medium-sized home is going to run close to 300 man-hours.
Do you really think those working in the Ford plant are earning that much more than those working on construction crews? They're not.
Homes contain all sorts of advanced components (furnace, central air, water heaters, etc.) and things requiring specialized skills (plumbing, gas lines, wiring, etc.). Then there's acquiring land, the fact that it's not possible to build homes on-site in the same efficient way as running a vehicle along an assembly line, and so forth. Finally, there's the sheer amount of material in a home rather than in a car. Sure, wood is cheaper than steel. But a whole lot of wood is more expensive than a whole lot less steel.
Well, well, well. My 2-year-old thread comes back to life. I am not sure I can add more to the discussion. If you throw location into the mix then we are not talking about just the home anymore. It's like antique car pricing. You're not buying a car. You're buying nostalgia. Just remember one thing. When Irma hit Florida, people left their homes behind and drove off with their cars. It wasn't the other way around.
We've already discussed that people were evacuating THEMSELVES, not the cars. You now, many deaths during hurricanes and natural disasters happen because people don't want to leave their house and property behind and as a result, cannot contact emergency services when they do need help. People value their houses and property highly and rather stay at home even during the strongest of storms.
also, even without location, the house should always be worth more.
even the regular bread and butter cars are costing too much these days.
even the regular bread and butter cars are costing too much these days.
I don't know. In 1971, $1995 bought you a new Pinto with a 65 hp 2 liter 4 cyl and a standard trans. That equates to $12,371.96 in 2017 dollars. For about that money, you can get a new economy car that has more power, gets better fuel economy, has more features, is safer, and will last longer.
A car that cost $4500 in '71 would be about $28k today. A modern, $28k car is pretty loaded with all sorts of tech features, safety, power, handling, braking, and economy, and will definitely last longer in good condition than that '71 car. So I'm not sure that bread and butter cars DO cost too much, when inflation is factored in. You get a lot more car for your money now.
I don't know. In 1971, $1995 bought you a new Pinto with a 65 hp 2 liter 4 cyl and a standard trans. That equates to $12,371.96 in 2017 dollars. For about that money, you can get a new economy car that has more power, gets better fuel economy, has more features, is safer, and will last longer.
A car that cost $4500 in '71 would be about $28k today. A modern, $28k car is pretty loaded with all sorts of tech features, safety, power, handling, braking, and economy, and will definitely last longer in good condition than that '71 car. So I'm not sure that bread and butter cars DO cost too much, when inflation is factored in. You get a lot more car for your money now.
Salaries have not risen in a similar manner. A bread and butter car will take a larger chunk out of your take-home pay these days than considered reasonable. Bread and butter cars are definitely too expensive. Sales of autos have gone done considerably this year, but unfortunately people are still taking out longer and longer loans to help pay for them.
Salaries have not risen in a similar manner. A bread and butter car will take a larger chunk out of your take-home pay these days than considered reasonable. Bread and butter cars are definitely too expensive. Sales of autos have gone done considerably this year, but unfortunately people are still taking out longer and longer loans to help pay for them.
I'm just taking inflation into account and what you get for your money. You get more car for similar money. Now, the fact that wages have not kept up doesn't negate that fact. There is more safety, power, economy, ability and quality in the same overall cost of car. With all the regulations and ability baked into even basic modern cars, they should cost MORE than they do for what you get.
I don't know. In 1971, $1995 bought you a new Pinto with a 65 hp 2 liter 4 cyl and a standard trans. That equates to $12,371.96 in 2017 dollars. For about that money, you can get a new economy car that has more power, gets better fuel economy, has more features, is safer, and will last longer.
A car that cost $4500 in '71 would be about $28k today. A modern, $28k car is pretty loaded with all sorts of tech features, safety, power, handling, braking, and economy, and will definitely last longer in good condition than that '71 car. So I'm not sure that bread and butter cars DO cost too much, when inflation is factored in. You get a lot more car for your money now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAAudi
Salaries have not risen in a similar manner. A bread and butter car will take a larger chunk out of your take-home pay these days than considered reasonable. Bread and butter cars are definitely too expensive. Sales of autos have gone done considerably this year, but unfortunately people are still taking out longer and longer loans to help pay for them.
That is to say, incomes - which are a function of wages - have increased 6.5x since 1971. So, yes, Tiffer E38's numbers are correct.
As for take-home pay, the 1971 filing-jointly bracket for the median income hit 15% at a mere $500 of income, and by the median income was 25%. In comparison, the same 2017 bracket for median income doesn't hit 15% until over $18,000 is earned and doesn't go any higher. So today's earners are seeing a smaller percentage of their income going to the federal treasury and a larger percentage of it going to their bank accounts. https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1971 https://taxfoundation.org/2017-tax-brackets/
Simply, there is far more value for your dollar in buying an automobile today than fifty years ago. It's more reliable, it'll last a lot longer, it comes with a better warranty, it's a more comfortable ride in almost every way, and it's safer.
That would have been interesting to see people moving their houses, the interstates clogged with wide-loads (after the weeks of prep to get the house up ON the trailers).
People evacuated THEMSELVES, with the tool that made the most sense. Life being the most valuable commodity.
*shrug* Seems like you're an OP who can only see the world in one way. I'm sorry for you in that respect as some of the best things I've experienced in life were a result of shifting my perception, my viewpoint... having empathy. Cars/engines Are complex in design, but anyone with the desire can make one in their garage, from the rough castings on up. In fact, if you'll go search Youtube I think you'll find a few videos where people do just that (in 1:8 and 1:12 scales, same effort and sometimes more due to size).
Well, when you move a house it travels at about 1 mph, maybe a little less. You can do better than that when there are no obstructions to deal with, but the down time to clear branches wires ect out of the way cuts you down to 1 mph. It took 9 hours to move our house 8.4 miles.
Houses increased in price by 4-5% last year in the US, with some expensive markets like Seattle, San Fran, etc increased more than 7%. I'm afraid houses will always cost more than cars, buddy. Even your postage-size lot will be valuable in the future. Land is not infinite - cars will always be.
How true. Even in a place like Singapore, where cars cost 4x the price of an equivalent model in the US, that is valid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
