The affordability of a new car is always a moving target because the idea of “affordability” itself isn’t fixed. Variables like household income, car prices, incentives, and vehicle financing can tip “affordability” one way or another. Our current best measure of vehicle affordability now shows that it takes a household roughly 37 weeks of their total income to buy a new car.
That’s actually an improvement! I’m trying to look at the bright side in this Morning Dump, but the news isn’t great to start the week. GM is going to lay off nearly 1,000 people, mostly in North America, as it tries to streamline. Startup Northvolt was supposed to be Europe’s answer to China’s battery dominance and that answer seems to be “Ehhhhhhhh…”
Lemme see. Good news. Good news. Speaking of China and Europe, there’s a possibility that the EU and China’s government have come to some sort of complex technical agreement to avoid tariffs. Maybe.
New Vehicle Affordability Improves A Bit In October
The above chart from Cox Automotive/Moody’s shows the Vehicle Affordability Index, which tries to reduce the complex question of affordability into a fairly straightforward and easy-to-understand metric: How many weeks does it take a median household to afford the average new vehicle?
Generally, we look at the Average Transaction Price (ATP) to determine how expensive cars get, but this doesn’t always take into consideration how much money a family has to buy a car and the interaction of interest rates and incentives.
Affordability generally increased from 2012 to 2019 as the industry managed to sell more than 17 million cars a year for five years in a row. Then the pandemic happened and prices went way up (you can see my Trimflation piece for an explanation of why). The time it would take a family to buy a car jumped to over 42 weeks even as financing costs decreased.
Now it’s down to 37.4 weeks, which means that if you spent all of your money on your car during a given calendar year it would take until approximately September 12th to pay it off. Obviously, no one is giving out 9-month loans and most families also have to pay for shelter, food, and Toca Life World updates.
Since the beginning of the year, though, affordability has mostly increased. Why?
“Auto loan rates are beginning to decline, offering some relief to consumers,” said Cox Automotive Chief Economist Jonathan Smoke. “In October, we also observed an improvement in auto credit availability. Although new-vehicle prices remain stubbornly high, these improvements in auto credit, along with increased incentives from automakers, are driving new-vehicle sales as we approach the end of the year.”
The typical monthly payment is now down to $743 after peaking at $795 in December of 2022.
ATP still remains the toughest part of this measure to get to move as automakers have continued to make increasingly expensive cars and cut the more affordable models (and safety requirements and consumer tastes make vehicles more expensive). I suspect someone is going to come into the market with lower priced cars and trims in the coming years, but that isn’t something that happens overnight.
GM To Lay Off 1,000 People Globally, But Mostly In Michigan
Companies are required to file what’s called a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (a WARN notice), and GM has filed a large one, indicating the loss of more than 600 people in Michigan, including 507 workers at the Global Technical Center in Warren, Michigan,
These cuts include more than 100 people working in various engineering departments as well as some sales staff according to The Detroit News. Here’s what GM has to say:
“In order to win in this competitive market, we need to optimize for speed and excellence,” GM spokesperson Kevin Kelly said in a statement. “This includes operating with efficiency, ensuring we have the right team structure, and focusing on our top priorities as a business. As part of this continuous effort, we’ve made a small number of team reductions. We are grateful to those who helped establish a strong foundation that positions GM to lead in the industry moving forward.”
Most of the individuals who are getting laid off will get a severance equivalent to wages and benefits through January 14th, 2025.
Northvolt Going South Fast
Northvolt is a Swedish batterymaker supported by mostly European-based carmakers like Volvo and BMW. It was supposed to be the next big thing in batteries with former Tesla exec Peter Carlsson at the helm.
Building cars is hard. Building batteries for cars is also hard.
The idea is sound, as Europe badly needs a domestic company that can support a growing demand for batteries, instead of relying on plants in Asia. So far it hasn’t worked. The company has continued to struggle and lost a $2 billion deal with BMW this summer, leaving the automaker to source batteries from Korea’s Samsun SDI.
According to Reuters, this is only getting harder:
Two unpublished documents reviewed by Reuters, marked “Production plan 2024”, show Northvolt has since early September been consistently missing weekly production goals for shippable cells, or cells deemed good enough to be delivered to clients. They include data as recent as the week ending Nov. 10.
The documents show, along with goals for each week, a target to reach 51,000 deliverable cells in one week by the end of 2024.
Contacted by Reuters, Northvolt said the targets had been set on Sept. 5 and were “long out of date”. It did not elaborate on its current production targets, which it said are based on contracted customer deliveries.
This is extremely not ideal, especially as demand isn’t increasing as fast as everyone hoped, thus making investment harder to source.
Did Europe And China Reach A Deal On Tariffs?
The European Union has moved forward with tariffs against Chinese automakers trying to sell cheap electric cars on the continent. This isn’t ideal for everyone and has already resulted in threats from Chinese companies against EU members.
Last week, one of China’s state-controlled television networks (China Central Television) posted on Weibo that there was progress being made on a deal. Specifically, there was a “technical consensus” on how tariffs could be removed.
The two sides have been exploring an agreement on so-called price undertakings — a complex mechanism to control prices and volumes of exports, used to avoid tariffs. China and the trade bloc held talks Nov. 2 to Nov. 7, after which they said that they had made “technical progress” and that they would continue negotiations this week.
How would that work? The simplest way is that a minimum price would be set for imported vehicles. Chinese automakers win because they get more money and European automakers are protected from cars that are too cheap. Consumers probably lose, but it should be comparable to the tariffs put in place.
Will this actually happen? That’s a harder question to answer, and one Weibo post isn’t enough to convince me it is.
What I’m Listening To While Writing TMD
“Work It” by Missy Elliott. A fun way to start the week.
The Big Question
Is that 37-week number bigger or smaller than you expected it to be?
GM announced a $6 billion stock buy back in June of this year and now they have to lay off people. They have no issues dropping billions on those but the people who design and build their products that bring in their profits? You’re fired. Very sad state affairs.
Have you considered that some of the buybacks are part of the agreement for an SBLOC loan from private equity as just one plausible example?
Not everything is binary like, “Give us your $6b now. We made that for you!”.
Holy crap. Instead of tariffs you agree to just pay more for the goods, and strengthen your competition at the expense of your own customers? Those tariffs would have gone back into public budgets, say, for helping manufacturers be more competitive? Sounds like a sad deal.
Also – Toca life cost of living should be part of political party platforms – We can’t take it anymore! We need to organize ourselves!! The little avatars and their crap cost more than real toys.
You make a good point. Tariffs are generally not an ideal solution to much of anything, but I’d rather have the $ in local/allied government budgets than in Chinese gov’t-aligned pockets.
In principle I am OK with tariffs to decouple from China. But the same people pushing tariffs are the ones claiming they will reduce the cost of living, and that is unforgivable horseshit.
Why would anyone want to decouple from China? They are the best at so many things, and the US is the best at so many others. Both are ridiculously terrible at all the stuff in between. That’s where you get other countries in the mix to help out, like a sous’ chef at a 4-star restaurant.
To dismiss, rather than embrace and integrate with China is insane. It’s not a one way street of bowing to their will. In fact, it’d be the opposite. They need us more than we need them, if the US puts on itrs big boy pants again.
The opportunity is now to develop a better world alliance, benefiting all of humanity. Not just for Tom in Topeka at his taco truck getting to buy leftover meat from the leftover policies of NAFTA.
And you expected different from the Pol class?
Historically, tariffs make things less efficient (i.e. costlier, lower quality etc) because now you have a captive audience and just eliminated your competition. But In China’s case, the match has been uneven from the very beginning as they subsidized industrial development to the tilt. So that’s a new equation. But EU needs the Chinese market and their supply chain, and the check-mate is complete.
I’ve always thought hours worked to goods obtained is far better measure of “costs” than comparing just prices via inflation. While obviously no one is trading 37 weeks straight for a car, it makes it reasonable to view the time lost in order to have the thing. And if that time lost is greater than it used to be, regardless of inflation and wage growth and all the other factors, the cost is higher. If the time lost is lower, than the total cost is reduced from previous.
It’s how I see old inflation stuff all the time. I think the Model T was revolutionary for costing less than a year’s median pay at one point.
this metric is something I have not seen before, so it really does not mean much. The reality is though, the inflation that we experienced for the last few years has not equalized just yet. Many middle class are not seeing the wage adjustments and thus they are falling into the class below them. Sadly this seems to be pretty standard.
It is a good point. Also a good indicator of how well off you are, that is a bit more measurable for people.
Uh, GM just announced really good financial results and their stock shot up. Their reward to their employees is mass layoffs? FFS.
In case anyone still labors under the illusion that big corporations give two shits about their employees, this is yet another example of how they don’t.
37 weeks checks out, for me, but only if …
It was gross income, not net, so some kind of contract work that only pays in cash, and dodging taxes.
And.
I had absolutely no expenditures. No food or water, heat or cooling, phone bill or internet, and no gaming or streaming subscriptions. Heck, not even electricity.
Sounds perfectly sane.
It’s a means of comparison across time.
No one is actually going to the dealer with 37 weeks of paychecks and trading it for a car, but the argument is that the number going up or down is a valuable trend correlating with people’s finances and new car prices.
I have my issues with the precise manner of the comparison (comments far below) but if they’re measuring the same way each time it at least means something.
As a professional consultant who bills by the hour it is easy for me to think about purchases in terms of time worked. Do I want a new car or 6 months off? Wow, that’s an easy decision.
the ability to put quality-of-life decisions in units of Dollars is sorely lacking from society at large (and most government policy discussions, at least at a magnitude that’s digestible for most voters). Good on you for being able to understand what your time is worth!
Same calculus as I go through. Been consulting since the 90’s
I haven’t had a vacation day since 2021 so… new cars?
So on Social Security checks, it will take me over two years of saving those checks. To afford a new car at about 50K. (laughing like a lunatic)
But no issues here.
Food and shelter are over rated luxuries anyhow…YMMV
except that 50K car will likely be 80K by the time you put those checks back fully.
And that is why I am fully content and happy to drive my soon to be 16 year old car..
“Want vs Need” are two real, and different things in life. I can live with that.
Yet also understand some folks either want or need new cars. I get it 100%.
Seriously. Not a problem for me.
Now if only I could stand to eat 16 year old food. lol
37… “In a row?”
“Try not to spend any income on the way through the parking lot!”
Man of all the big automakers, no one deploys sickening corporatese quite like GM.
“The typical monthly payment is now down to $743 after peaking at $795 in December of 2022.”
I simply cannot imagine spending that much on a car payment.
Even when I was earning 3x what I am making now, I didn’t pay that much for a car payment.
I’ve thought about whether I could afford that kind of payment before, but it was usually in the context of “if I traded in my car for an M3, what would the payment be and is that a reasonable tradeoff for me”. Basically, a super nerdy car engineer deciding if a dream car is worth that kind of scratch – not at all a reasonable financial decision (and the answer was no, btw, it was not worth it). To spend that kind of cash on just transportation? I guess that gets you a new hybrid Sienna, so it’s not an insane amount of money, but hardly seems to make sense as “typical”.
what if I told you that is for a car around 35K with a 7 year note and current interest rates around 9 percent.
I already did close to that for a pre-owned car around $34K on a 5 year note – just a hair over $700/month. I forget the interest rate in 2013.
I paid it off a year early with an annual bonus – and I still drive it.
I’ve always enjoyed Missy Elliott. I’m glad she’s still terrific.
I miss Left Eye Lopez…
She sure could burn down the house.
Amazing comment.
I always expect it to be 41, but I’m biased.
Not a good sign when you are laying off engineers. That is future money.
Future money isn’t important when your execs and shareholders get paid on current money.
They do NOT like getting paid Tuesday for a hamburger today.
The cost in 1950: 34.6 weeks 1960: 24.6 weeks
Layoffs suck, for sure. But is it better to never have created the jobs in the first place?
I worked at a company that had a “once a job is created it is never eliminated” mentality. Which was great because they never laid anyone off in 80 years.
But, at the same time it made keeping the company successful impossible because you could not flex to take advantage of growth opportunities that weren’t 100%certain to stay around FOREVER. It basically means you are just treading water as your competitors take all the excess demand and hoping that they don’t drive you out of business.
I think there is a balance somewhere. Otherwise, job creation stagnates and that’s not good for workers.
“Once a job is created it’s never eliminated” is a really scary proposition. Assuming perpetual growth is not realistic for any enterprise.
It basically means everyone is overworked and your output is chronically behind demand. For people that are willing to grind out the years with good job security but absolutely no growth opportunity it works. And even those people can waiver when their friends make more money doing similar work (but then get laid off a year later). Layoffs 100% suck but are kind of part of a well-balanced company at times.
Our union has a clause that if they make your permanent position redundant, they have to do everything reasonably within their ability to place you in another position. Sometimes at a pay cut, but it’s better than being jobless.
That’s part of the reason so many jobs are temp roles (can be active for up to 30 months). It’s hard to commit budget to a permanent role, but temps are often set up.
I gambled on a temp role that turned to a permanent full time spot. My co-worker isn’t so lucky and is getting shipped back to his substantive position. Less than ideal as it’s overnights with forced overtime (supervisor role, can’t leave unless someone relieves you). But that is the game, unfortunately.
Did that same company have $6 billion in stock buy backs like GM?
it was privately owned, they usually just paid dividends when they had extra cash. But yes, investors got a return on their money.
Regarding GM, im glad to see that it continues to be the people who arent in charge getting the boot as a result of the people in charge fucking things up. The way it should be.
That graph of the Vehicle Affordability Index crossing the x-axis at 28 instead of zero makes both the rise and fall look more dramatic than it is. This is not a scientific way to present data.
““In order to win in this competitive market, we need to optimize for speed and excellence,” GM spokesperson Kevin Kelly said in a statement.”
These lay-off statements are always such bullshit. Was the current structure optimised for sloth and mediocrity?
OK, so it’s GM, but still.
It’s hard to believe any new structure will be successful when it is planned out by the same people who created the old structure and thought that was just fine until yesterday.
Beware of any graph that bottoms out at something that isn’t zero.
Where is it written in stone that the “median” family needs to be able to easily afford the average new car? Especially when the average price of new cars is rather skewed by all the luxury vehicles and wildly overpriced trucks and SUVs that are sold?
Heck, you save a LOT of money just by buying an actual “car” and not a CUV…
It would be interesting to see the median new car used in this comparison. Because that would largely eliminate the skew from the high end stuff due to their low volume.
Not really…
Corolla $22,175 vs Corolla Cross $23,860
Accord $28,295 vs CRV $30,100
Mazda3 $23,950 vs CX30 $24,995
Sentra $21,590 vs Kicks $21,830
Jetta $21,995 vs Taos $23,995
None of those seem like “a lot” of savings. Heck, the biggest savings I could find was the Chevy Malibu ($25,800) vs the Equinox ($28,600) and that’s particularly bad because the Malibu is ancient and going away any day now.
Plus, head down to a dealer and I’d wager the actual deals you can get in real life shrinks those price differentials even more.
The problem is people don’t cross shop them that way – they look at Accord vs. Pilot, not Accord vs. CRV. Civic vs. CRV is the real comparison.
You can get a much better deal on a sedan today than any of the CUVs. I shopped the bottom of the market for my mother last year. We ended up with the perfect compromise, a Soul. For $20.5K it is all the car anyone actually needs.
I’ll take “Wildly unverified claims for $2000, Alex.”
I’ll take “I am the guy everybody I know asks for car buying advice, and that is what I see for $1000, Alex”.
If that’s the basis for your argument, you might have well said:
“Heck, you save a LOT of money just by buying an
actual “car” and not a CUV…cheaper vehicle that isn’t even in the same size class of more expensive stuff…”The sales volumes don’t bear that out. Midsize sedans have long been the highest volume of sales for anyone that offered one. Now the RAV4 outsells the Camry and the CR-V outsells the Accord; the passenger volume, standard powertrains, are all similar between those models. And they’ve been that way for 10+ years now, long before those brands offered crossovers beneath the RAV/CR-V.
A $30k car in 2014 is a $38-40k car today. $30k was considered affordable, but a nice version of affordable.
And wages have actually outpaced inflation for once too.
If yours have not, what are you doing about that other than whining on the Internet?
You totally lost me with your comment. Where is my comment “whining”?
On Jalopnik
I’d put it under Pursuit of Happiness.
Happiness needs a rather higher than just median income, and has for about 50 years now. Doesn’t help that there is such a ridiculous disparity between haves and have nots today with not a whole lot in the middle.
I read recently that wealth inequality is higher now than in the Gilded Age.
I think it’s roughly equal to the level right before Bastille day.
We’re a few years behind in sharpening the guillotines.
Well, we just voted in 3-brach government control to the party that espouses “trickle-down” and puts the wealthiest man in the world in an unchecked power position. So there’s some more motivation on the way.
At least you know your enemy this time…
Who needs guillotines when everyone and their uncle has assault rifles?
Fans of a theatrical spectacle? Historical re-enactors? Amalgmated Guillotine and Basket Makers Local #505?
Please don’t forget the Watermelon Halvers Of Halfport Mississippi Youth (WHOHMY) #228.
They already have their work cut out for them.
Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. Cost of living for the poor is a lot higher now too.
I thought wages were outpacing inflation?
Reading comprehension – cost of living for the poor is higher now than it was in the Gilded Age. Nobody is willing to live today the way that the poor and working class lived back then being part of that.
Wages absolutely ARE outpacing inflation for the first time in decades – it is a small part of what is driving inflation today, along with corporate greed. But it’s mostly corporate greed.
Sorry, bud. It’s not corporate “greed”. lol. Do you actually know how inflation works?
The global standard for currency (hint: the US) started printing money all willy-nilly to appease some sort of bullshit segment of the global population every couple of weeks, thus devaluing the worth of each note. Then they had to print more to keep the promise of support on the previous value of the note. And on, and on…
Corporations will adjust to whatever economy of scale presented to them. We (even the rich) don’t get that choice.
So, while you can twist numbers to say payroll numbers are higher on average, you have to compare it to something, and typically payroll numbers adjust quicker than, say, the words from Powell once a month.
What you are comparing it to is the cost of a grape in 1962. It’s meaningless today.
Yes I do, which is why I call corporate greed as a driving factor for the recent spikes. They raised prices due to supply chain and other issues, and found they could just keep right on raising them and paying out exec salaries and buying back stock to enrich the stockholders. With a small side of increasing worker wages so they didn’t starve. Government printing money is a very small factor (and not how most of the money supply is created anyway – fractional reserve banking is a far, far greater factor).
And with Chief Idiot about to run the asylum, hang onto your wallet if he does what he says he’s going to do.
Good grief, you are impossible to talk to rationally.
I genuinely hope you have an awesome rest of the day 🙂
I agree. That’s why I get pissed when people complain that people in other jobs but in the same job family are getting paid more.
Don’t complain that their wages are too high. Complain that yours haven’t kept up.
Or in the case of people whining about housing costs – move somewhere cheaper that you can afford to live. Moving from the expen$ive northeast to a much cheaper area down south was the best financial decision I ever made, and has allowed me to greatly increase my net wealth AND disposable income.
For me that’s a yes/no thing.
Yes the housing is cheaper (and so is the property tax) but my wages are cheaper too.
Rent is off the charts here unfortunately since it’s retirementville. Average rent is $1,500 a month and average hourly wage is $15/hr
Wages do not vary anywhere NEAR as much as housing costs do. As an 18yr remote employee, I make the same wherever I live, but I can assure you that my job in SoCal might pay 15% more despite the cost of a house like mine here in God’s Waiting Room, FL being *literally* 10X at the time I moved eight years ago. And that hasn’t changed much, the runup in prices here might mean that it’s only 8X today – or prices in So Cal have gone up such that maybe it’s 12X today. But at the time, a colleague in San Diego was buying a house as well – I paid $90K, he paid $990K for an almost identical house – but mine has a garage and his has street parking. My home office is in Boston, the difference between here and there is not quite that insane, but it’s still the difference between a $300K house and an $800K house plus commensurate property taxes and a whole heap of state income tax to boot.
If you are working retail, the difference is also not that much. $1500/mo here rent is easily $3500 up there – and I can assure you that you are a lot more fucked up there working retail than down there – it’s $15-20/hr either way. And with no state income tax you get to keep a little more of it at the high end.
Ultimately, there is a huge country of different options to chose from, but the whiners always seem to be from the MOST expensive coastal areas. Yes, So Cal is a lovely place to live, 2hrs from beach to skiing and all that, but you PAY for that privilege. Ditto the Northeast, without even having the advantage of the nice weather.
Yes. Pay needs to go up. We agree.
I think everyone gets a little stuck with absolutes when it comes to average/median person affords average/median this and that.
Do I think that the median family needs to afford a new car? Maybe not. But ideally, the gap wouldn’t be tremendous, that people of slightly higher than average means or whatever that increment may be, can afford some sort of new car. The fewer people that can afford a new car, the fewer used cars for those that can’t afford new, and the cycle gets out of control, as we’ve seen lately. Even worse, once that gap gets so prevalent that manufacturers only cater to those with higher incomes, we see close to what we’re getting now; nobody catering to the lower ends of the market.
Ideally, there would be a balance in the market that catered to as many people’s needs as possible. Right now it’s sort of bleak. The goal shouldn’t be for only the wealthy to be able to afford new cars. And now it’s looking a whole lot like some manufacturers are going to be in a world of hurt by choosing the new world of high margins on lesser volume path.
Those manufacturers would not be better off losing money on a bunch of cheap cars like they did back in the day.
The low end of the market is catered to beautifully by USED cars.
There’s a balance. The low end should naturally be used cars. But there’s a whole strata of different situations.
I also feel like I’m one of the few defenders of the concept that sometimes a cheap new car is a better choice than a used car. For someone that needs a fixed cost transportation, sometimes cheap and new makes a lot more sense than taking on risk in the form of a used car. I know it made a lot of sense when I bought my SX4 a long while back. And it served me really well. Where many of the used cars I have owned failed me (repeatedly).
There’s only so many used Corollas hanging around, and with their Toyota tax resale values, you rarely get to capitalize on their non-existent value anyway. What the hell is the point of a used RAV4 that hardly costs less than a new RAV4 anyway? The antidote to a lot of this is more new cars being sold to a greater number of people.
I’m in my mid-40’s and have never bought a new car. I figure if I have X amount of money to spend, I can get much more car on the used market. Like when I bought a Volvo that stickered for 45K in 2007 for 13K in 2012.
The thought of being the first owner is tempting, maybe I’ll do it someday, but it really doesn’t make a lot of sense except in a few specific situations.
If we were to revert to say, 2017, the math on used cars suddenly changes. Back when there were a healthy supply of people buying/leasing new sedans and hatchbacks and even small crossovers, there were tons of great, depreciated options. This was a time where an off-lease Accord cost 16k. That’s a serious value. Depreciation hit hard and early.
I’ve bought a dozen new cars, with the peak being two BMWs that I special-ordered and picked up in Germany. But that was then and this is now, I don’t really care about price, within reason, but the auto industry doesn’t make anything I want to buy anymore, so I am back to buying used.
I actually agree with you on that. A friend of mine who is a “non-traditional” college student needed a car when her Jeep Grand Cherokee shit the bed. I pushed her to get one of the super cheap leases on a base Jetta that VW was doing. $200/mo for three years. Perfect solution to her dilemma, and it worked out well for her.
Problem is, she hated it, because she wants to drive a big-ass luxury SUV, not a modestly sized car that actually meets her needs just fine. And that, in a nutshell, is why the median price of a new car is close to $50K. There are PLENTY of cars for well less than $30K out there, they don’t sell because people don’t want cheap cars. if people did, the Mitsubishi Mirage and Nissan Versa would be bases-loaded home runs, not soon to be axed also-rans that barely sell in a year combined what Ford sells in a few weeks of F-one-fiddys.
I worked for this supplier based company for 8 years, switched to GM to realize it wasnt the company that I was expecting to be, moved back to the same supplier company with a better salary and position. A lot of friends, even my family called me crazy for leaving GM.
My mental health is more important than anything else, the stability and knowing I still have a job that support my family is very important to me right now, all my friends at GM are always stressed waiting for that day when they decide they are no longer needed, very smart people with families too.
Just hoping all that people land a decent job soon.
Good to hear and know. Best of luck to you amigo.
Good mental health is over rated…/s
The percentage of income needed to buy a new car is pretty irrelevant, as is the concept of “this car used to cost ___ and now after ____ years of inflation would cost ____ today”. None of this takes into account that housing is 50%-100% more expensive in most markets compared to five years ago. As long as that trend continues (it will) “affordability” will continue to mean nothing.
In fact, you would almost believe that auto manufacturers would be lobbying for affordable housing policies, as in the current environment, income that would be considered for purchasing vehicles is being sucked up by housing expenses. Can’t buy a new car if your landlord is jacking up the rent 500$/month, or you’re about to take on a 2k/month mortgage.
THIS. I can deal with most of the other increases, but the fact that housing has increased so much basically kills any hope I have for the future. Yeah, I can afford a few K more for a decent car, but I’m most likely permanently priced out of the housing market.
Gas prices could go to FREE and it would not help me on the housing front.
My brother, after many, MANY months of being outbid on house after very modest house, finally broke through and is under contract. But despite he and his wife doing pretty well on the income front, that modest house at a not so modest price, and childcare costs means you can bet he’s permanently out of the new car market. Hell to make it all work, he and his wife share the car and have a pretty convoluted schedule to make it all work.
Auto manufacturers should be terrified that a couple in their 30’s with kids are resorting to being a single used-car household in order to make housing possible. Especially at their income in a place where the housing market isn’t even comparatively expensive to others. I get that other people may be doing better, but typically a couple like them should be the backbone of the new car market, not people with plans of limping along a single RAV4 to the year 2040.
Right? It used to be that modest home ownership was accompanied by a modest new car.
In the 50’s my factory worker grandfather had a new house in a nice, new neighborhood, 3 kids that my grandmother stayed at home with, and was able to buy a new car every few years.
In the 80s/90’s, both my parents worked, but mom had a string of new cars, and my dad would get the one she was replacing.
Side note: I think my grandfather was born at the perfect time. Just missed fighting in Korea, too old for Vietnam, was able to raise his family on one income, and saw all 3 of his kids go on to lead nice lives.
My parent’s both worked their asses off and now are watching their adult kids struggle.
I try my best to not compare eras as a lot of comparisons are apples to oranges, and while 2024 certainly doesn’t look like an episode of Leave it to Beaver (a very upper-middle class household, mind you) I would imagine I have it better than my grandparents. Did they somehow manage to afford 13 kids and a house on suburban Long Island on one salary? Yeah actually. But I try to believe that things are, theoretically, just different instead of objectively worse.
But there’s just zero bright spots regarding the current housing market. And there’s nothing to imply that it will improve.
See and I’m crazy cheap and can’t picture a scenario in which I would even spend 12 weeks of my salary on a car right now. And I’m not rich by any metric.
I can afford a new car. What I can’t afford is the insurance rate on a new car 🙁
I mean, I didn’t know what rates were like until I talked to my agent and asked about a few different cars I was think about getting and what the rates my be. WHOLLY COW!
The rate on my new car was close to the rate on my 12 year old car.
Multi-line agents are the best. I lucked into a decent one.
“I suspect someone is going to come into the market with lower priced cars and trims in the coming years, but that isn’t something that happens overnight.”
It will happen quicker than most think. When the Government reduces corporate income tax to 15/16% vs. 28%, that is a massive incentive. Sure, your local t-shirt shop in South Padre might gain an additional thousand or two in free cash flow (which is awesome for them!), but when we talk about $1b or more in product production, the chickens will come home to roost.
It will certainly happen faster than if it was mandated that “X” number of vehicles meet “Y” standard (only possible through buying materials outsourced from enemies) and by pumping out ICE.
The market will shift quickly now.
Alternate take: More stock buy-backs that boost stock price, which benefit stockholders and executives.
And? All that noise is just that…noise. A drop in the bucket percentage-wise, and has nothing to do with production of lower margin vehicles that still maintain a profit.
In what way is it “just noise”? Historically, corporate tax cuts tend to be followed by share buybacks, which directly enrich shareholders (including company execs). I am not aware of historical evidence of significant increases in R&D, average worker compensation, or low margin product sales that are of similar magnitudes to the buybacks.
You’re missing the power of underpants gnome business analysis: you can just group everything you don’t understand or like in the ? column in the middle, so nothing interrupts your path to profit.
Correct, but those workers should have a vested (401k) interest in those buybacks. It’s not just the C-suite that benefits here.
There are way more shareholders in any given company than those on the “top floor”.
Haha, okay my 401K (while healthier than most of my peers’) is not remotely comparable to executive equity compensation. Even if my retirement fund were entirely company stock, which would be incredibly stupid, my benefit would still be orders of magnitude different.
No one said it was supposed to be equal, but it typically should be commensurate on a scale.
So, if it makes you extra money for doing your normal job, that’s a good thing, right?
I just don’t get why someone would be mad that their employer (or investment) does better. Sure, I understand that not everyone gets $10m out of the blue, but a hot 10% jump in whatever equity isn’t exactly the result of Satan’s minions doing his bidding. lol
This right here is what is going to happen. The rich get richer, the poor get screwed.
This is pretty much what happened after the tax cuts Congress enacted during the first Trump administration. Not really any reason to expect it to be any different this time.
It really would be nice if they made the tax cuts contingent on increased employee wages, but that’s not part of the grift.
Like when he made that big deal in 2016 about “saving” Carrier jobs, when they took the taxpayer money and relocated the jobs a year later anyway.
It’s a shame that POS Reagan made tax buy backs legal.
LOL – there is NO profit in cheap cars. And no incentive to lose money on them so that you can sell more profitable expensive cars now that CAFE is footprint based. Those reduced taxes will go right into exec’s and shareholder’s pockets.
Did Jalopnik totally shut down?
looks like all the commentariat are now here.
Oh, joy. Bring on the Nazi word salad algorithm contributors. lol
Which part of what Kevin said is wrong, though?
Like I just replied to you above, you benefit as well if you do it right.
Also, let’s not forget about the daily hemming and hawing around here about the Chinese trying to “flood the market” with cheap EV’s. This has a lot of people here trembling in their boots.
The fact that the new Admin’s policies are looking to make it more of a level playing field for US manufacturers should be met with glee, not disdain. Clearly the market is there, otherwise the Chinese wouldn’t bother fucking with it, unlike what choices we are given now.
It makes no sense that some people here are against “The Man”, when new policy shifts only benefit more people. Whatever was going on up until now since Covid wasn’t working. So, let’s change that and take advantage of it.
It’s not that hard to understand, in my view.
So you argue there is a market for cheaper cars, since the Chinese companies serve it (notably, outside the USA), but you’re happy that US manufacturers will be protected from Chinese competition…and that’s why you think US manufacturers will do an about face and start making cheaper cars when they start saving money on taxes (but pay more in tariffs, since these plans were all supposed to be deficit neutral)?
Firstly, if you were to take the word of the comments section here as Gospel, there is absolutely without a doubt a market for cheap cars.
Secondly, why would a US manufacturer pay tariffs to build locally? They aren’t going to build abroad and pay tariffs, just to pay to ship it “home”?
They won’t pay tariffs if it’s built here. That’s the point.
They will pay tariffs on the parts.
Jeez Louise. Not if they make them here.
Your position holds more weight if you insist on talking about EV’s and rare Earth elements that are mostly abundant overseas. Which is also worse for not only the environment, but also the human condition in terms of social cost.
It’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes here, lol. Build it here, buy it here, use it here.
Normally, the sage advice of “living within your means” is titanium-level advice to live by, but the US is busy scratching everyone’s back like a 5th grade whore. That’s when you end up paying tariffs, or blow-pops in currency, depending on the analogy.
…Weren’t you complaining about word salad earlier?
I wasn’t complaining about anything at any point.
I was pointing out the parroting hypocrisy of some people to repeat lies ad nauseam from questionable media that is taken at face value. This is/was written rampantly over at Jalop, and has bled here.
Nazi this, fascist that, end of democracy, blah, blah, blah…
Regardless of your semantically focused rebuttal, my point is still valid.
Do you know how many years it would take the US to entirely in-source production of all automotive components? It’s not actually possible due to raw materials but even if it were, and even if the federal government were directing the activity like China’s can, it would take years (and YEARS) to invest in and build capital, obtain the knowledge base, and go through process and part approvals.
I’m not trying to be a jerk but your comments suggest a lack of understanding of international supply chains and complex manufacturing. My comment is not “it’s too hard.” My comment is “you would need an all-powerful centralized government, hundreds of billions of dollars, and at least a decade.” With the end result that your goods now cost 10X as much as they do today.
Tariffs can encourage some reshoring but they will never achieve the result you are describing.
It actually wouldn’t. We have what we need, and if we don’t, Canada does. That’s like 20% of the globe’s actual consumable resources.
It can be done. It just needs the funds (ahem) and the motivation to make it happen. We are talking a few years here, not decades out or something like that.
And, a couple of hundred Billion is what we spend as a country every week just on debt interest. It’s basically lunch money.
The Chinese WILL flood the market with cars they take huge losses on just to fuck with us and put our local makers under. Then they will raise prices to what they should be to start with. That is not a good result, it’s only a very temporary help when hundreds of thousands of decent paying jobs evaporate as a result. And if the Chinese are so good at making cheap cars profitably, all they have to do is build factories to make them HERE (as the Japanese and Koreans – and Germans have) then they avoid the tariffs completely.
The worst thing we ever did was give China “most favored nation” status.
They might as well have, the idiots are running the asylum over there even more than they are about to be in Washington.
I’m willing to bet legit coin that those dipshits still left at Jalop have zero influence on public policy, before, now, or ever. They did build a pretty echo chamber at that URL, though.
Actually, your local t-shirt shop probably will not benefit from lowered corporate tax rates as they, for the most part, report income on Schedule C and pay at the personal rate.
Their COGS will also skyrocket due to tariffs, if we are to believe the incoming administration’s plans.
Tariff increases are such a Wile E. Coyote move the optimist in me believes the administration will stop talking about them and hope we forget they were ever mentioned.
I had some hope of that too but the cabinet appointments so far make me believe that they are going to just go for it.
Yes, then they will raise prices to maintain their margins, t-shirts will become less affordable so sales will decrease along with their profits. So, they’ll be paying less tax!!!
They could do even better by closing the shop, so they don’t pay any business taxes at all!
Are you writing with a straight pointer finger that we would be facing imminent skyrocketing t-shirt prices?
T-shirts?
That’s a new one, lol.
Well, then they are doing it wrong.
If nothing else, multiple changes will be happening at once (tariffs!) which are likely to increase costs for business.
Besides, I thought the deficit was supposed to be reduced…
I’m not sure that’s what’s going to happen, but I do love t-shirt shops in South Padre and have given them more money than I’d like to admit.
T-shirt graffiti cartoon caricatures are fantastic, especially when they come with a free can koozy that has a phone number you will never dial. I’ll give you that one all day!
Please pass the bong, you got something special in that bowl
That thing is cashed, but feel free to scrape the screen. There might be a good hit in there, lol.
Classy move GM, 2 months of severance a week before Thanksgiving and barely enough money to get someone into the new year. All while Mary Barra makes $28M a year in compensation, Mark Reuss makes $18M, and the stock price is up 60% YTD. I get that layoffs are a part of business is these massive companies, and that revaluating personnel needs is important, but this ain’t exactly great for optics as the year closes out. I suspect UAW and other groups will be all over this if C-Suite pay isn’t cut accordingly.
Ironically, a family friend got 6 months from Pfizer when they cut a gazillion jobs last year.
Hmmm.
Sounds like most of the layoffs are tech related, thus don’t affect union members. UAW generally doesn’t care about non-members, but if they do it is only because they can utilize the layoffs to advance something for themselves. Not saying UAW is heartless, but it isn’t their people.
2 Months does seem shorter than normal for GM, unless the people getting cut are relatively new hires.
Santa is not real. And nobody deserves a gift this year anyway. Right? /s
Apparently Santa drives a Ford
Tim Allen’s character drove a 1990 Ford Taurus SHO in The Escape Clause so that checks out.
I’m not sure it makes the most sense to compare median income with mean transaction price.
Someone making the median income is not (and really has never been) the prime audience for the average new vehicle.
That may be true, and is fair, but I assume the argument behind using those numbers is that they’re the most indicative of what the average, not extremely wealthy consumer makes, and what a typical vehicle sells for, so it’s a fairly accurate accounting of what a typical new car buyer could afford. As with all national financial figures, they’re messy and some caveats are necessary, but general trends can still be gleaned.
If you’re going to discount the guy making $10 million a year from your income calculation, you should probably discount his Rolls Royce from the average new vehicle price and use median instead. That’s half of my point.
The other half is that the affordability of a $50K crossover to a family making $75K isn’t super applicable to reality, because that isn’t the kind of purchase that those people are generally making.
The point on the Rolls is totally fair, I guess my thinking was that people making 8 figures distort the Mean income calculation more than a 6- figure car would, but it’s still a distortion. Just thinking 2-3 orders of magnitude above for income versus a single one for ATP.
I’d agree that the affordability shouldn’t matter and that people/families with sub-6-figure combined incomes shouldn’t be shopping for 50k+ crossovers, but based on the average loan terms in the US continuing to creep above 72 months and with average payments being ~750, it unfortunately seems like there are a lot of people that are overleveraged and overextending to get into expensive vehicles they cannot actually afford.
Counterpoint (not that *I* would ever do it) – in an era when any reasonably reliable new car can be expected to last 10+ years with minimal dilemmas is a 6 or 7 year note to buy it a bad thing? This isn’t the 70s when you were lucky to get 100K/4-5yrs out of a new car before it became uneconomic to keep due to rust and mechanical dilemmas.
A bigger issue is people getting bored with that car, or it no longer meeting their needs, and them rolling ever increasing negative equity into subsequent purchases.
IIRC, the median and mean of new car pricing are not actually all that far apart. The vast bulk of the new car market really does center right around $40-60K, with $20K cars and $1M cars being outliers. But relative to the population, the annual number of new car sales is relatively small, and the buyers skew rather wealthier than the median.
I will say again what I have said many times. Cheap new cars make zero sense today when you can simply get a 2-3yo CPO much nicer used car with just as much life left in it for the same price. There are just too many compromises to get a car down to the low $20K price point vs. one that is nominally $5K more expensive new. IMHO you need to be a special sort of special to buy a Mirage over a used Corolla.
It’s not though. The “typical” new car buyer is a LOT wealthier than the average person. Which is why the average price of a new car is so skewed. It’s not like expensive vehicles are stacking up like cordwood all over the place.
In this case when I said “average consumer” I should have specified “average new car buyer” and while yes, the average new car buyer has more wealth than a median earning household family, the average car loan in the US according to Bankrate is ~$41k financed at 6.8% for 68 months, resulting in an actual cost of 50k on that loan, not counting down payment. And this is purely the average, meaning plenty of loans are further underwater than that.
I don’t intend to sound judgmental here, but higher wealth earners tend to be smarter with their finances that paying 10k in interest on a new vehicle. Default rates on new cars are at the highest rate since Covid hit as well. All this to say, median earners are continuing to purchase new vehicles that are objectively too expensive, so any trend that will show that the ATP new vehicle is become more affordable on average when compared to median income shows a trend towards generally more affordable vehicles. We can argue all day about how tenuous that connection is and the magnitude therein, but it seems to be there.
You do what you need to do to get the car you desire. For most, a car is not a particularly rational purchase. If it was, a hell of a lot more Corolla station wagons than F-one-fiddies would be sold every year. And realistically, $10K divided by 68mo just isn’t much money to the person who can comfortably afford a near $50K car anyway.
I think the trend in ATP mostly shows that markups are mostly over and the historical norm of discounts on most cars to “move the metal” are coming back more than anything else. people aren’t changing their car buying habits, nor is there any more demand for cheap new cars.
It actually is about as sane as a Muppets skit. Just because one has pre-tax income of $95k doesn’t mean they have $35k just sitting there waiting to snap up a Sequoia.
Silly.
Finance department be all:
The monthly payment is $599!
….what about the interest rate?
THE MONTHLY PAYMENT IS 599
……..what is the loan term?
THE MONTHLY PAYMENT IS 599 YOU STUPID FUCKING IDIOT SIGN HERE OR ILL KICK YOU IN THE DICK!!!!
“Oh shit I owe $50,000 on a $30,000 Rogue”
I simply refuse to even discuss monthly payments when I buy a car. “I can buy it in ONE payment or as many as it has months of warranty – the interest rate will determine which”. Makes their heads explode. But I also fully realize that most don’t have that privilege, and whether the payment fits in their budget (or at least they convince themselves they can swing it) is their biggest concern when buying a car.
I’m the same way. “Tell me what monthly payment you’re aiming for and we can get you there!” motherfucker tell me the interest rate and loan term and I’ll do the rest.
Exactly. But the average American is TERRIBLE at math, so here we are.
Terrible at math AND financially illiterate, which is one hell of a combo.
Two sides of the same coin, you can’t have one without the other, finance is math.
They hate it, too. And they don’t really like you knowing you have options. When they tell you that you aren’t going to find a better rate and you already have credit union financing lined up for a full percent less, they get real annoyed.
It took me three tries to get the last dealer I worked with to just give me the money factor on a couple lease options (cash on the lease, but not on financing) so I could decide what to do. They didn’t even really want to give me the buyout and the payment at the same time so I could do some math. They seemed shocked that I was even aware that single pay leases exist (unsurprisingly, worse terms for me, since I wanted to do the buyout anyway, but surprisingly, even worse terms than a traditional lease with a small security deposit).
You can pay $6 for a month membership at Leasehackr and get these numbers directly – not the BS ones dealerships give you.
Also the lease calculator on Edmunds usually has the latest manufacturer incentives and rates
You’re setting yourself up to lose if you rely on them and only them for a loan. Have to make them compete against something.
Depends on the interest rates. If I’m looking at a new car and the manufacturer is offering 0% or 0.9% or something like that I’ll usually just go for that because I have excellent credit. With used cars it’s a lot more complicated because rates are much higher…not to mention new rates were fucked for a while recently.
I’m very much the “buy a whole car for one to two of those monthly payments” type person. I’m a decent car buyer and always hunting old toys and new fun, so I don’t drive rusted out trash or anything. But I do drive older cars. The daily’s in my family are a ’99, an ’05, and an ’06. The concept of spending $6K+ per year on car payments just isn’t one that works for me. I could rearrange my finances to afford it, but all I get is a newer car? Not worth the tradeoffs for me.
But I work in an auto adjacent industry and am frequently sickened by the deals I see pushed through and unnecessary raping of buyers for profit.