Fewer young people can afford to have a car

The quality of life improves as personal motor vehicle dependency is overcome.

Your fixation on "the left" aside,

Gen Z Is Changing American Car Culture​

​

The forward-thinking youths are at it again: This time, they're changing the car culture embedded in American society. Incrementally, at least.

Polls, studies, and surveys show younger generations are less likely to drive, less likely to have a driver's license, have less access to vehicles, and when they do get behind the wheel, are driving fewer miles.

Perhaps it's because of a greater awareness of the environmental and health damages of cars on the road. But Daniel Knowles, a writer for the Economist and the author of "Carmageddon: How Cars Make Life Worse and What To Do About It"— a book about how cars contribute to public health and climate crises — told Insider there are many circumstances as to why Gen Z and Millennials may be ditching their automobiles...

"Most young Americans still do have cars — more don't than used to — and the ones who do, I think it does feel more of an imposition or something you're forced to have than in the past. So I hope that's beginning to motivate people to look for change."...

[https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-changing-american-car-culture-2023-5]

Millennials in Motion: Changing Travel Habits of Young Americans​

​

 

"Overcoming a motor vehicle dependency" often requires a move to a different city, and housing expenses can go up as a result.
There are many parts of America (even including many high population density areas) where being able to get around without a car is not very realistic, I think. (Not theoretically impossible, but not pragmatic, and very difficult, creating a big burden on the person)

It might be true that if a certain city were able to almost completely eliminate cars within its boundaries and come up with an alternate solution, quality of life would improve. But that does not translate into quality of life improvement if a larger segment of society simply can't afford them any longer.

 

How Gen Z's lack of driving could exacerbate loneliness epidemic

NBC News Dana Griffin explores why Gen Z is driving less than other generations and how the major cultural shift could potentially exacerbate the loneliness epidemic.

Less and less of Gen Z -- roughly defined as people born between 1997 and 2010 -- are on the roads. Today (for year 2022), just 25 percent of 16 year olds have any type of driver's license. Compare that to nearly three decades ago (1997) when that number was 43 percent.

Why do all of that when you have things like public transportation, ride sharing, and food delivery aps?
teen girl: "The modern accessibility for getting rides, and all of that, has sort of balanced out the fact that I don't have a license."

It's also part of some broader shifts we're seeing in Gen Z.
They're drinking less, sleeping earlier, and staying home. Part of it may have to do with their 'coming of age' being interrupted.
"Many of these young adults really finished middle school, or high school in the pandemic where everything shifted to online. So in real life, interactions seemed less important."
They're spending a lot of time glued to their phones. Just about half of teens say they're online almost constantly (2022), double that from 2014 to 2015, according to a recent Pew study.

Another part? Finances.
85% of Gen Z citing barriers. Maybe less focus on getting a car and paying insurance, and more on groceries and paying off student loans.

Last year 24 percent of Gen Z adults reported always or often feeling lonely over the past 12 months. Compared to 18 percent of Millennials, according to the American Enterprise Institute's Survey Center on American Life). ​

How Gen Z's lack of driving could exacerbate loneliness epidemic, NBC (video), Feb. 12, 2024

 

I suspect it may in part be due to a reduced desire for personal freedom. Or perhaps a lack of recognition of desire for personal freedom. Being bombarded as they are with notions like freedom is a social construct and requires consensus and other brainwashery. They dont need independence, they need more codependence to be happy. Just a little more. You're almost there. You cant do it yourself. Just need to be more 'connected' and the group will make you happy...

 

I think it happens under Republicans and Democrats. But on the positive site: number of US billionaires is steady growing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billionaire

And the US debt is growing too, but it looks here Republicans take a lead: https://www.usatoday.com/money/blueprint/banking/national-debt-by-president/

 

because for some crazy reason car makers only want to sell cars with all kinda digital sensors and stuff that raises prices and costs more to maintain and repair

the people want cars like from the 90's, cars that just work, easy to repair, thus cheaper to repair and own

 

But that may only be due to monetary inflation, not actually having more wealth.

 

I am not sure if the reason is inflation or the rich are getting richer because they take more from the average American.

Here is what Gemini (formerly called Bard) said:

Why in the US number of billionaires is growing?
Gemini: The number of billionaires in the United States has been growing in recent decades. There are a number of factors that have contributed to this growth, including:

• The growth of the US economy: The US economy has grown significantly in recent decades, which has led to an increase in the overall level of wealth. This has created more opportunities for people to become wealthy, including through entrepreneurship, investments, and stock ownership.
• Changes in tax policy: Some argue that changes in tax policy, such as the reduction of capital gains taxes, have made it easier for people to accumulate wealth and become billionaires.
• Globalization: Globalization has led to increased opportunities for trade and investment, which has benefited some individuals and businesses. This has contributed to the growth of wealth and the number of billionaires.
• Technological innovation: Technological innovation has created new industries and businesses, which has led to the creation of wealth and new billionaires.

The increase in the number of billionaires has been accompanied by an increase in income inequality. Some argue that this is a negative consequence of the growth of the number of billionaires, as it leads to a concentration of wealth and power at the top of the income distribution. Others argue that the growth of the number of billionaires is a positive sign, as it reflects the success of the US economy and the opportunities that it creates for individuals.

The debate over the impact of the growth of the number of billionaires is likely to continue. There are a number of factors to consider, including the overall impact on the economy, the impact on income inequality, and the impact on society as a whole.

And this is META AI answer:
As of 2022, the number of billionaires in the US is growing, with 935 individuals holding a collective wealth of $4.5 trillion ¹. This increase is attributed to various factors, including technological advancements and a strong stock market ². Additionally, the US has a large and diverse economy with multiple industries and sectors, providing ample opportunities for wealth creation ³. However, it's important to note that wealth disparities exist, and the growing billionaire class raises questions about income inequality and social mobility ⁴.

 

Well, it's a good thing that the majority don't drive. Have you seen how many people are on the roads now, even with the reduced percentage of drivers? There are too many people!

In my neighborhood, which was once in the sticks, every available space that was once empty tree lots or farm fields has become filled with dozens of squeezed up together family houses. The roads aren't built for so much traffic, there's not enough space for expansion. I shudder to think what the traffic will look like in 10-20 years with those families' kids growing up to drive their own cars!

The only saving grace has been that there's been a reduced number of drivers since we're in bad economic conditions. Traffic really died ever since the Great Recession. It's never been the same. And that's bad for businesses that rely on tourism.

 

In 1980, the average car cost $7,574.
Taking into account official inflation, today that would be equivalent to $28,000.
Yet today, the average car costs $47,433.

I'm sure the cars might be better quality, in some ways, and are more efficient than they were in 1980. But I still suspect that doesn't explain most of that cost increase.

 

Right. Additional technology can't possibly cost an additional $19,000 per car. I expect this would be a reflection of the capitalist drive for a profit and income that exceed inflation.

 

You keep blaming "capitalism" and "greedy corporations". But why would that cause prices to be any higher today than they were before? You are aware that competition is what keeps price levels from rising in a free market?
If corporations could have increased their prices before, don't you think they would have already done so?

Blaming capitalism and corporations (for that change over time) just seems like mental laziness, to me.

Ask yourself what has caused the difference between now and then?
Surely you aren't arguing that corporations are more "greedy" today than they were then.

There have also been five big American auto manufacturers that have gone out of business or gone through bankruptcy since the year 2000. So it's not like all these car companies have been making gigantic amounts of profits.
Chrysler, General Motors, and now some are even saying Ford might be headed near bankruptcy.
(And don't forget Pontiac, Saturn, Mercury, and SAAB has not been doing well)

 

most cars today are software driven, and that software won't be updated forever, thus will become a security risk to the driver and the public due to hackers if it's connected to the internet, which many cars will be if not already

imagine when your car is listed as end of life and no longer supported, ave to buy a new one like a cellphone

we already saw people with free 3g for the life of the car, get screwed with the end of 3g

 

greedy Corporatism is much of the problem

 

Yes, and I suppose you think this is a "free market". Why do you think CEOs said after COVID they were "taking price" and that COVID provided them "good cover" to raise prices, and they said it was affecting profits significantly, to which the shareholders at the shareholders' meeting cheered and applauded? And why did at least one say they were raising prices incrementally so as to avoid raising suspicions and outrage? Is that freedom which they enjoy what you mean by a "free market"?

THEY DID! I just told you so! Listen.... THE ONLY WAY PRICES CHANGE AND RISE is that corporate execs raise them. There's no magic beyond their control in this. And while they make changes, profits and their "compensation" keeps going up. But I'm sure that's just "coincidence".

Funny. Blaming anything else seems like the ignorance of blindness to me.

"Then"? When? No matter. The answer is the same: corporations were ALWAYS greedy. That's why they worked to stop and eliminate labor unions. That is why they have so many lobbyists. That is why the formed A.L.E.C. That's why they moved production overseas. That's why they have somewhere between $15 and $28 TRILLION in offshore tax havens according to a range of estimates. That's why they practice "planned obsolescence". That's why healthcare costs are so high.

Can you explain in any other terms why the top 1% takes a continually increasing share of both income and wealth while the bottom 60% takes a continually diminishing share?

You seem to think I said something about "all" and that no corporation has ever failed. And your wording is evidence of your exceptionally weak argument.

Did you know that I've said several times that capitalism is in crisis? Wait till you see the consolidation when the Second Great Depression hits.

 

Hey, I'm not necessarily even arguing that capitalism is not in crisis.
But you should be willing to look at some of the government policies over the years (especially including trade, immigration, debt) that have been pushing the market economy closer towards crisis.

After all, it would be kind of absurd to say a market economy could withstand anything and everything and still function desirably well, wouldn't it?

For example, the U.S. probably can't take in over a million persons from the Third World every year continuously, for several decades, and still function well. My only point here is that the capitalism which you are talking about doesn't occur in isolation. And you want to look at car prices, maybe it's fair to take a look at changing government regulations on those cars, to see if that could be having an effect, which I think definitely is one significant factor here.

 

Not being dependent on a private automobile is liberating, as many younger Americans who take advantage of Uber, Lyft, public transportation, electric two-wheeled vehicles, etc. are demonstrating.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is thriving, despite the bleating of the chronic bellywhingers:

If the United States’ economy were an athlete, right now it would be peak LeBron James. If it were a pop star, it would be peak Taylor Swift. Four years ago, the pandemic temporarily brought much of the world economy to a halt. Since then, America’s economic performance has left other countries in the dust and even broken some of its own records. The growth rate is high, the unemployment rate is at historic lows, household wealth is surging, and wages are rising faster than costs, especially for the working class. There are many ways to define a good economy. America is in tremendous shape according to just about any of them...

Let’s start with economists’ favorite metric: growth. When an economy is growing, more money is being spent. More stuff is being produced, more services are being performed, more businesses are being started, more workers are being hired—and, because of this abundance, living standards are probably rising. (On the flip side, during a recession—literally, when the economy shrinks—life gets materially worse.) Right now America’s economic-growth rate is the envy of the world. From the end of 2019 to the end of 2023, U.S. GDP grew by 8.2 percent—nearly twice as fast as Canada’s, three times as fast as the European Union’s, and more than eight times as fast as the United Kingdom’s.

“It’s hard to think of a time when the U.S. economy has diverged so fundamentally from its peers,” Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, told me. Over the past year, some of the world’s biggest economies, including those of Japan and Germany, have fallen into recession, complete with mass layoffs and angry street protests. In the U.S., however, the post-pandemic recession never arrived. The economy just keeps growing.

[https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ely-fantastic/ar-BB1nWoTe?ocid=BingNewsSearch]​

 

No one who buys their own groceries or pays rent is buying your hot air.

 

Individual circumstances differ, of course, but I prefer to respect the empirical data over anecdotal whining.

... A recent analysis from the Economic Policy Institute found that from the end of 2019 to the end of 2023, the lowest-paid decile of workers saw their wages rise four times faster than middle-class workers and more than 10 times faster than the richest decile. A recent working paper by Dube and two co-authors reached similar conclusions. Wage gains at the bottom, they found, have been so steep that they have erased a full third of the rise in wage inequality between the poorest and richest workers over the previous 40 years. This finding holds even when you account for the fact that lower-income Americans tend to spend a higher proportion of their income on the items that have experienced the largest price increases in recent years, such as food and gas. “We haven’t seen a reduction in wage inequality like this since the 1940s,” Dube told me.

Pay in America is becoming more equal along race, age, and education lines as well. The wage gap between Black and white Americans has shrunk to its lowest point since at least the 1980s. Pay for workers younger than 25 has increased twice as fast as older workers’ pay. And the so-called college wage premium—the pay gap between those with and without a college degree—has shrunk to its lowest measure in 15 years. (The gender pay gap has also narrowed slightly, but far less than the others.)

What explains this sudden boost in lower- and middle-class wages? The answer lies in the post-pandemic American labor market, which has been unbelievably strong. The unemployment rate—defined as the percentage of workers who have recently looked for a job but don’t have one—has been at or below 4 percent for more than two years, the longest streak since the 1960s. Even that understates just how good the current labor market is. Unemployment didn’t fall below 4 percent at any point during the 1970s, ’80s, or ’90s. In 1984—the year Ronald Reagan declared “It’s morning again in America”—unemployment was above 7 percent; for most of the Clinton boom of the 1990s, it was above 5 percent.

The obvious upside of low unemployment is that people who want jobs can get them. A more subtle consequence, and arguably a more important one, is a shift in power from employers to workers. When unemployment is relatively high, as it was in the years immediately following the 2008 financial crisis, more workers are competing for fewer jobs, making it easier for employers to demand higher qualifications and offer meager pay. That’s how you end up with stories about college graduates working as baristas for $7.25 an hour. But when unemployment is low and relatively few people are looking for jobs, the relationship inverts: Now employers have to compete against one another to attract workers, often by raising wages. And—this is the crucial part—these dynamics affect all workers, not just people who are out of a job.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ely-fantastic/ar-BB1nWoTe?ocid=BingNewsSearch
​

 

Did you collect and collate that 'empirical data' yourself or are you still trusting the 'experts' to tell you what and how to think?

Cost of living is still rising for most americans. Thats the 'economy' that effects votes.

 

I'm not parroting the Trumpy line.

The documented reality is that the United States has weathered global inflation better than other nations, far better than some:

From the beginning of the pandemic through the fall of 2023, the last period for which we have good comparative data, real wages in both Europe and Japan fell. In Germany, workers lost 7 percent of their purchasing power; in Italy, 9 percent. By these metrics, the only workers in the entire developed world who are meaningfully better off than they were four years ago are American ones.​

​

 

That's true, but those other nations (which you are referring to) are more politically progressive than the United States and did even more deficit spending (as a percentage of GDP) than the United States.
We're talking of course of majority white English-speaking and Western European nations.
Japan and Thailand, meanwhile, which had a lower percentage of deficit spending, had much less inflation (during this timespan), comparatively.
A large part of Japan's decrease in GDP simply has to do with population declines and aging population, which doesn't necessarily all reflect lower standards of living, although Japan is definitely hurting. Partly because their economy is so export and import dependent and they've been facing competition pressures from China, which have cut into their exports, resulting in a stalling economy. As a result of population decrease, real estate prices have been headed down in Japan, which cuts into the GDP statistics, even though paradoxically it results in better standards of living. By the same token, the GDP of countries like the United States as a little bit artificially inflated from the housing shortage and home prices skyrocketing.

Italy has not been doing well since 2009 and underemployment in the country has remained high. Many of the ambitious young people have moved to Germany to find work. For the same reason, birthrates are down, helping to explain decrease in GDP.

limited job opportunities for younger generation in Italy (July 22, 2019)

 

You can parrot all the stats you want. Cost of living is the one that matters at the polls, and its still going up. That's not 'better off' for very many Americans.

 

You cannot deny the empirical reality that the U.S, has weathered global inflation better than most nations, and that employment opportunity and rising income have helped deal with it.

 

All those countries in Western Europe are experiencing energy shocks from the disruption in gas supply due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Canada has suddenly taken in a higher percentage of immigrants than even the U.S., leading to a housing shortage and cost-of-living crisis there.

The handful of "nations" that the U.S. is usually compared to economically are disproportionately in Europe.

In my mind, that kind of only leaves Australia. What other nations were you comparing the U.S. to?