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.
The simple answer is don't buy new. New cars are a horrible investment, especially if you purchase.
I'm 45 years old, make more than the median income - i.e. "can afford" it - and have never in my life owned a new car. I've never had a car payment above $525/mo, either. Never felt like I was missing out on anything.
When one buys new what one is really buying is a warrantee. Nothing to sniff at.
I remember as a child in 1971 seeing adds for VW Beetles, Ford Pintos and Chevy Vegas for around $2,000. Yes, very basic transportation. Today that would be around $12.708 if you believe the inflation rate over that time period. You can't get a basic, new car for anything near that today.
A new Camry costs around $27,000 to drive away. So the real price has a bit more than doubled. Some is genuine quality improvement, and some environmental and "safety" add-ons.
A new Camry costs around $27,000 to drive away. So the real price has a bit more than doubled. Some is genuine quality improvement, and some environmental and "safety" add-ons.
I would never buy a Camry at that price. Either a stripped down model if I can't afford any better or a CUV if I can. No market there.
Priced out of a new car? Look no further than the govt mandates; back-up cameras, tire pressure monitoring systems, CAFE, freon , bumper height, air bags, passive restraint, emissions, inside trunk release, traction control...
At least for now you can pick a color, so long as the EPA approves of the paint used.
But no worries if you cant purchase outright, because this is America and thanks to money creation you can finance for up to 10 years or perpetually lease for a low downstroke. Every wonder why you see new Mercedes's and BMW's in school parking lots and subsidized housing projects?
"In 1965, the sticker price of a new V-8 powered Ford Mustang coupe was $2,734.00 (the equivalent of $19,900 today), and the average production worker made $3.00 per hour; to purchase a new Mustang coupe with a V-8 engine, therefore, required 911 hours of work, or about 23 weeks."
"in 2013, where the $31,545 Mustang requires a worker earning $27.15 per hour to put in 1,162 hours in order to pay the Ford off."
Ah yes.. The Old bootstrap or get another job quote from the Far Right..
America, the ONLY 1st world country where:
Wages has been stagnant for 30 years!
.
Incorrect. Wages have gone up. The issue is the politicians at local, state, and federal levels have continued to raise taxes on the American middle class. Go back to 1955 tax rates and you will have much more disposable income.
Priced out of a new car? Look no further than the govt mandates; back-up cameras, tire pressure monitoring systems, CAFE, freon , bumper height, air bags, passive restraint, emissions, inside trunk release, traction control...
At least for now you can pick a color, so long as the EPA approves of the paint used.
But no worries if you cant purchase outright, because this is America and thanks to money creation you can finance for up to 10 years or perpetually lease for a low downstroke. Every wonder why you see new Mercedes's and BMW's in school parking lots and subsidized housing projects?
Yep. Much better to strip these cars of safety features so the driver can force others to subsidize him/her in the form of increased auto and medical insurance premiums resulting from increased risk of accident, injury and death. Of course, if the driver is so cheap that he/she would forgo airbags or traction control, they likely have terrible insurance coverage and lack two nickles to rub together in personal wealth, so additional monetary burden would be foisted onto others.
Last I looked, it was the democrats that voted for NAFTA, which sent skilled manufacturing jobs overseas. And, it doesn't help that they are rushing in immigrants who will work for peanuts, which keep wages down.
I think maybe you need to look again because House Dems voted against NAFTA 102-156 and Senate Dems voted against it 27-28. House Republicans voted for NAFTA 132-43 and Senate Republicans voted for it 34-10. Clinton deservedly gets the blame for signing it, though it should be also noted that negotiating started under Bush's administration.
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.
