What exactly is the argument here? That since in 1965 people could barely afford a car it's okay if now we've regressed to the point where 60 years later people can now again barely afford a car?
The argument is that from a purchasing power perspective the price of cars in Europe has been more-or-less constant over the years. I think that they've gone up a bit, actually, but you get a lot more car for your money now than you did in the 60's and the 70's. Those cars were death traps, high maintenance and roadside breakdowns were very common.
Prices in an absolute sense will always rise, especially when inflation is high but you have to compensate for purchasing power, wages and so on. Effectively, from today to 1970 the price of cars has probably dropped in terms of what you get for your money and that includes 'these last years'. When looking at EVs it is true that they are still more expensive, but then again, they didn't exist at all back in the 70's so we can't really compare, and as volumes ramp up the price will come down. The bigger issue will be to match growing grid capacity to growing number of EVs because if those too get too far out of phase there won't be enough power available in some locations.
Incredible how the article and I are both talking about the rise in prices since 2020 and you two are being intentionally obtuse talking about the 60s and the 70s.
It doesn't matter at all how things were in the 70s. What matters is that car ownership is much harder than it should be, NOW. It was cheaper, so it could be practically as cheap as it was a few years ago, but it's not.
Nobody that wants to drive / needs to drive needs to buy a brand new car per-se. For 5K and up you can get a perfectly serviceable car that has more life left in it than a brand new car from the past and that will pass emissions tests for various environmental zones. My daily driver is 25 years old and I can drive it anywhere. I've owned quite a few vehicles, some new, some old and in spite of the cars sticker price being lower in the 70's and 80's I was very far removed from being able to buy a new vehicle when I got my license first (in '86 or so). You are constructing a whole pile of arguments that have a poor or even no foundation and I'm saying that as a EU driver who could afford a brand new car now but that's mostly because of my increase in income. New car ownership historically wasn't a thing that 'the poor' engaged in and with prices being roughly steady at 1 years worth of income it's clear that you either need to borrow money or save a lot of money to buy a brand new car, unless your boss is friendly enough to provide you with a brand new lease vehicle (which in software circles isn't rare at all).
If you evaluate the cheap cars from the past (say, 1986: Mini, 2CV to a lesser extent the 2CV and really cheap options such as Yugo, Zastava and the Fiat Panda of the day) you'll find that they were very slow and underpowered, consumed quite a bit of fuel, were super dangerous to drive (both the Mini and the 2CV were essentially driving coffins, I should know, I've had both) and were comparatively high maintenance. They were also about 10K guilders at the time, which today would be approximately 11500 euros give or take. That's order of magnitude equivalent but your 15K car today is much safer, sips fuel in comparison and will go three times as far between service intervals.
Car ownership right now is very easy, new car ownership is harder, but it always was, and if you want to compare apples-to-apples you need to compare much higher class vehicles from the 80's with the present low end because the low end from back then has simply disappeared: nobody would buy a 1 star NCAP vehicle even if it was cheap and available, the market simply isn't there anymore. Maybe you're the exception but if that's so then I'm sure you can find a nicely restored 1980's mini for that kind of money. But please don't, they're more dangerous than they even were back then because a modern 'cheap' vehicle will drive right through a 1986 Mini in an accident.
It’s funny how poor people are always the victims in these schemes. In the USA many places let people in electric cars ,that mainly only rich people could afford, into the carpool lanes so they could travel without congestion. Of course the poor bastard in the 16 year old beater had to sit in traffic as they traveled to their second low paying job.
If anything we should let high emissions cars access to low congestion lanes so they spend less time polluting.
If anything we should let high emissions cars access to low congestion lanes so they spend less time polluting.
That's excellent thinking. I do wonder though if the number of high emissions cars isn't such that those 'low congestion lanes' would immediately become congested.
Personally I don't think any kind of vehicle once approved for road-worthiness should get an advantage over other road-worthy vehicles. Especially not if it ends up being a wealth inequality thing in disguise.
Turns out cars don’t belong in cities, so efforts are made to undo the damage of 1960s car centric urban planning. That includes disincentivizing car ownership in cities in favor of bike lanes and transit.
TLDR: too much space wasted, too many deaths, too much noise, pollution, unpleasant neighborhoods, never-ending traffic leading to hours of labor wasted, lower tax base due to parking, sprawl, higher healthcare costs, lower access to services, extremely expensive infrastructure, etc
Comments
Neither can Europeans - even the cheapest cars are around 15k€, which is like a year of salary in some countries of the EU.
You can't buy cheaper, older cars because they don't let you in the city with them. Fuck poor people.
So basically they are telling you to fuck off and stay at home or something.
In 1965 in the UK average annual income was about 750 GBP [1]. A medium priced car was about 700 GBP [2].
Sounds pretty similar to the situation you describe today.
I suspect that in the countries where annual income is only 15 kEUR now that in 1965 hardly anyone could afford a car at all.
At least in the UK the reason people can't afford a car might have more to do with the price of housing reducing their disposable income.
[1] https://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/ukearncpi/result2.ph...
[2] https://www.retrowow.co.uk/transport/60s/motoring/60s_cars_c...
What exactly is the argument here? That since in 1965 people could barely afford a car it's okay if now we've regressed to the point where 60 years later people can now again barely afford a car?
The argument is that from a purchasing power perspective the price of cars in Europe has been more-or-less constant over the years. I think that they've gone up a bit, actually, but you get a lot more car for your money now than you did in the 60's and the 70's. Those cars were death traps, high maintenance and roadside breakdowns were very common.
Which is not true since car prices have dramatically risen these last years.
Prices in an absolute sense will always rise, especially when inflation is high but you have to compensate for purchasing power, wages and so on. Effectively, from today to 1970 the price of cars has probably dropped in terms of what you get for your money and that includes 'these last years'. When looking at EVs it is true that they are still more expensive, but then again, they didn't exist at all back in the 70's so we can't really compare, and as volumes ramp up the price will come down. The bigger issue will be to match growing grid capacity to growing number of EVs because if those too get too far out of phase there won't be enough power available in some locations.
Incredible how the article and I are both talking about the rise in prices since 2020 and you two are being intentionally obtuse talking about the 60s and the 70s.
It doesn't matter at all how things were in the 70s. What matters is that car ownership is much harder than it should be, NOW. It was cheaper, so it could be practically as cheap as it was a few years ago, but it's not.
Nobody that wants to drive / needs to drive needs to buy a brand new car per-se. For 5K and up you can get a perfectly serviceable car that has more life left in it than a brand new car from the past and that will pass emissions tests for various environmental zones. My daily driver is 25 years old and I can drive it anywhere. I've owned quite a few vehicles, some new, some old and in spite of the cars sticker price being lower in the 70's and 80's I was very far removed from being able to buy a new vehicle when I got my license first (in '86 or so). You are constructing a whole pile of arguments that have a poor or even no foundation and I'm saying that as a EU driver who could afford a brand new car now but that's mostly because of my increase in income. New car ownership historically wasn't a thing that 'the poor' engaged in and with prices being roughly steady at 1 years worth of income it's clear that you either need to borrow money or save a lot of money to buy a brand new car, unless your boss is friendly enough to provide you with a brand new lease vehicle (which in software circles isn't rare at all).
If you evaluate the cheap cars from the past (say, 1986: Mini, 2CV to a lesser extent the 2CV and really cheap options such as Yugo, Zastava and the Fiat Panda of the day) you'll find that they were very slow and underpowered, consumed quite a bit of fuel, were super dangerous to drive (both the Mini and the 2CV were essentially driving coffins, I should know, I've had both) and were comparatively high maintenance. They were also about 10K guilders at the time, which today would be approximately 11500 euros give or take. That's order of magnitude equivalent but your 15K car today is much safer, sips fuel in comparison and will go three times as far between service intervals.
Car ownership right now is very easy, new car ownership is harder, but it always was, and if you want to compare apples-to-apples you need to compare much higher class vehicles from the 80's with the present low end because the low end from back then has simply disappeared: nobody would buy a 1 star NCAP vehicle even if it was cheap and available, the market simply isn't there anymore. Maybe you're the exception but if that's so then I'm sure you can find a nicely restored 1980's mini for that kind of money. But please don't, they're more dangerous than they even were back then because a modern 'cheap' vehicle will drive right through a 1986 Mini in an accident.
Which cities are doing this which don't have good mass transit options as one of the "or something" ways to get into town?
It’s funny how poor people are always the victims in these schemes. In the USA many places let people in electric cars ,that mainly only rich people could afford, into the carpool lanes so they could travel without congestion. Of course the poor bastard in the 16 year old beater had to sit in traffic as they traveled to their second low paying job.
If anything we should let high emissions cars access to low congestion lanes so they spend less time polluting.
That's excellent thinking. I do wonder though if the number of high emissions cars isn't such that those 'low congestion lanes' would immediately become congested.
Personally I don't think any kind of vehicle once approved for road-worthiness should get an advantage over other road-worthy vehicles. Especially not if it ends up being a wealth inequality thing in disguise.
It's worse than that. If you're rich you can pay to use the 'car pool' lane to get down to the googleplex.
Working as intended.
Turns out cars don’t belong in cities, so efforts are made to undo the damage of 1960s car centric urban planning. That includes disincentivizing car ownership in cities in favor of bike lanes and transit.
https://m.youtube.com/c/notjustbikes has some great content about the issue.
TLDR: too much space wasted, too many deaths, too much noise, pollution, unpleasant neighborhoods, never-ending traffic leading to hours of labor wasted, lower tax base due to parking, sprawl, higher healthcare costs, lower access to services, extremely expensive infrastructure, etc