[Juiced6.3]

A few insights - as a mid 30s but just now got first fun car.

Social Problems:

1. Young (<25) people dont care about cars. This was bolded early. (new) Cars are expensive and sterile now. You dont need to work on them and cant tinker at home. They're already really fast too. Theres just not an emotional connection

I don't fully agree with that. I see plenty of youth get together at track days or the local "spot" on Sunday nights. The pandemic probably brought out more people to these things because everything else was shut down or closing early.

This past summer i was driving home and passed about 30 cars in a lot. Anything from a Honda Civic to C6 Z06 in the lot. Nothing really new but every car was modified to some extent. But all cars could be purchased for 25k or less. The Z06 was probably 30k but still, Target distribution center here pays $15/hr plus OT. With no other obligations in life, it is obtainable. Maybe not financially sound but whatever.

 

[Dave_Car_Guy]

So... returning back to the original inten of the thread...

I appreciate that you see that I tried... and seemingly failed.

But your thoughts are in line with mine on this: plenty of people will want more flexibility in their car relationship, and I think the "car subscription" model works well and is also very familiar to the younger generation ( who already subscribe to Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Apple, iCloud, Verizon, etc.).

The other nice thing is that it transfers all the risk onto the bank. That is the perfect model for a new car company, so buyers don't have to worry about the risk of dealing with a new car company, the risk of depreciation, the risk of major car failure, etc. That meshes well with the risk profile you describe. You'd rather pay to rent than buy in many cases.

 

[Cabin Pics]

Hahaha....you know when you're losing the argument? When you start calling names!

I didn't realize I was arguing with anyone.

 

[westopher]

The privileged position people would have to be in to critique someone for not wanting to go 140k in student loan debt is a clear example of why there is no agreement to be had here.
For some people that kind of debt simply isn’t in the cards. They still need to pay rent, and they may have no financial safety net to be able to do that while going to school. People don’t always finish school, people have changes in their lives that dictate their inability to complete a program, or maybe they simply won’t pass. That debt is a risk even if there is a near guaranteed payoff, as in life there are no true guarantees. I guess it should be expected on a forum where we are fortunate enough to treat cars as toys, but it doesn’t mean you need to be blind to the world around you. There are people from different financial backgrounds and different circumstances that dictate whether or not they have the same opportunities as you do.

 

[Nealric]

Sorry but as someone that dabbled in real estate for a short period of time, and having watched my mother bust her ass in the field for 25 years, this is BS.

Maybe if you are only setting up inspections and such for one house it is easy. But if you are juggling several active listings at one time - and if you are a good agent you are - it isn't easy at all. My mom in her mid sixties is still working seven days a week. Phone calls start at 7AM and a lot of times don't end until after dinner is done. That doesn't cover answering emails, showings, putting up signs, walking properties, taking pictures, putting together listings, closings and a myriad of other tasks involved.

Yes she gets the percentage whether it is $100k or 10M, but the amount of work for both is similar believe it or not, so it averages out. She might show a $100-200K house several times in a week and a $10M house twice in a month.

And real estate agents are commission only - so you honestly don't expect them to be advertising and looking for clients at all times? I gather you've never had any kind of commissioned sales experience.

These days there are a lot of "part time" realtors. Guess what - you can't be "part time" in this career if you truly want to succeed. You have to dedicate every minute of every day to the job, if not you will find out in short order that you are going to have a really hard time.

I have no doubt that these part timers might not have the attention to detail, but don't disparage a whole group of hard working people because you can supposedly handle their job on your own in 3-4 hours based on one experience.

Please understand I'm not throwing shade on your mom or any specific realtors. I have no doubt many work very hard for a living. The issue is that the system shouldn't be based on commission at all. It creates a ridiculous amount of make work that shouldn't be happening in the first place. It does not have to be this way. The United States has some of the highest real estate commissions in the world. This article has a comparison of real commissions in different parts of the world:

Why America’s real-estate brokers are such a rip-off

Selling a house in the United States is extremely expensive

www.economist.com

In Singapore, for example, combined Buyer/Seller commissions average around 2% of the transaction price. In Australia it's 3%. So why does it cost 6% in the U.S.? There's nothing fundamentally different about houses or real estate contracts in Australia.

 

[unhappymeal]

Seems like that was good for you but terrible for the sellers. On top of possibly getting 15% or more less than they should have, the realtor probably took at least 3% commission from the seller.

Why? They got the price they wanted without having to deal with the inconvenience of multiple showings, bids, wondering if the buyer would firm up, etc.

 

[spockcat]

Why? They got the price they wanted without having to deal with the inconvenience of multiple showings, bids, wondering if the buyer would firm up, etc.

What was the selling price? How much more money would they have gotten at 15-20% higher selling price? Is that really worth the "inconvenience"? Maybe if it were a $10,000 mobile home. But even at say a $200,000 house (cheap these days), you are talking about over $30,000.

 

[DrivinAW8]

If you want to be trite about it and someone claim you have some sort of enlightened vision, that's fine, but don't think whatever you are reading that is reinforcing these views is the gospel. There are two sides to this and it isn't as black and white as you would like to believe and the solutions that many on the other side have bring with them horrendous problems of their own. So for all the reading experience you have, do you have the practical experience? I will give you one personal example.

I see you’ve chosen not to learn, and yet here I am, still spending my time with this. It sucks to give a ****.

thankfully, your own little anecdote of workplace drama, in your own words, has better proven your position in the world (and how you relate to anyone who does not meet the standards of that position) than I could ever hope to. so thank you for that. but I do want to say, heaven forbid you should experience strife or inconvenience because someone (who doesn’t fit the model of excellence and success you followed to your position in life) challenges you, or what I would actually believe to be frightens you. no, your decision, with all the power you had in that organization, is that it would be better to hide that person away, not engage with them, not broker understanding or dialogue with them, to minimize their reality, to deny them opportunity, to refuse to make accommodations, to refuse to challenge workplace norms because it is hard and a potential HR liability.

effectively, to exclude them.
for your comfort.
for your convenience.
to prevent your perceived ‘loss’, or mitigate the risk of loss, which is to say..

you excluded them for your own gain.

it’s funny you say “there are two sides to this”, implying the world and decision making operates in a yes/no, on/off, right/wrong, true/false binary.... but then immediately go on to say the world is not “black and white”. your cognitive dissonance on this issue reminds me a goofy little quote, that being, “in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they are not.”

where that quote missed the mark, however, is when a person like you, bave, puts into practice a theory based on power, position, and a plethora of directly oppressive laws and corporate protocols and policing strategies and courtroom orders and lending guidelines and the resultant exclusion that all of the above have effectuated. a perfect theory, perfectly practiced.

the offer still stands.

 

[DrivinAW8]

also! here are a couple ‘enthusiast’ cars I saw today:

These affordable enthusiast cars for the masses were in the parking lot of a Whole Foods, itself a mere stones throw from Pittsburgh’s Google offices, in a formerly upper middle class early 20th century suburb. Eventually annexed by the City of Pittsburgh, it attracted a growing population of well-to-do (but Jewish) residents, and was resultantly redlined in the 1930s. Through a series of similarly unfortunate events, it remained predominately black and low income from the 1970s until about 2015.

That’s about the time when enough white people decided all those beautiful four square houses and grids of tree lined avenues just needed a little investment, just a bit of TLC to ‘change the neighborhood’ and ‘make it great again’.

 

[bave]

no, your decision, with all the power you had in that organization, is that it would be better to hide that person away, not engage with them, not broker understanding or dialogue with them, to minimize their reality, to deny them opportunity, to refuse to make accommodations, to refuse to challenge workplace norms because it is hard and a potential HR liability.

effectively, to exclude them.
for your comfort.
for your convenience.
to prevent your perceived ‘loss’, or mitigate the risk of loss, which is to say..

you excluded them for your own gain.

Welcome to reality. No one, either at a personal or business level, is going to take an unnecessary risk, period, full stop. If I have two candidates who are otherwise equal, but one of them has a tattoo'd up face, I am going to go the other direction. If one of them shows up talking about politics or social issues, I am not going to get involved with them. The second someone shows up and starts talking about their status as a member of XYZ group, I am not interested in getting involved. Why would I take one iota of additional unnecessary risk?

 

[bave]

That’s about the time when enough white people decided all those beautiful four square houses and grids of tree lined avenues just needed a little investment, just a bit of TLC to ‘change the neighborhood’ and ‘make it great again’.

It's just called gentrification and was probably a thing in biblical times....

 

[DrivinAW8]

Why would I take one iota of additional unnecessary risk?

I could think of a few reasons! But they will certainly be lost on you as you vapidity float on in your comfortable reality, that people like you created, so that people like you may thrive.

It's just called gentrification and was probably a thing in biblical times....

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the final straw! “Its always been this way, there’s nothing to be done’’!

You’re one of those new money knobs who ruined Nashville, btw. Bye! ✌

 

[bave]

I could think of a few reasons! But they will certainly be lost on you as you vapidity float on in your comfortable reality, that people like you created, so that people like you may thrive.

As I said to Cocker earlier, then you should start a business and take advantage of all of these undiscovered reasons and put everyone else out of business with your superior business acumen, or like Cocker are you going to sideline complain?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the final straw! “Its always been this way, there’s nothing to be done’’!

You’re one of those new money knobs who ruined Nashville, btw. Bye! ✌

What is your proposition then? Not allow people to sell their property to people of the "wrong" minority group? Or is it just a class thing? What about the fact that when you see money flow into these areas they tend to improve in almost every metric, crime, education, public services etc. The only thing you see is that people with money are moving in and people who are a different color are moving out and thus it is evil. Why don't you raise some money, buy some of these properties, fix them up and improve them and rent them out for below market rates if you are so enlightened and generous, or is that only with other people's money?

 

[CostcoPizza]

As I said to Cocker earlier, then you should start a business and take advantage of all of these undiscovered reasons and put everyone else out of business with your superior business acumen, or like Cocker are you going to sideline complain?



What is your proposition then? Not allow people to sell their property to people of the "wrong" minority group? Or is it just a class thing? What about the fact that when you see money flow into these areas they tend to improve in almost every metric, crime, education, public services etc. The only thing you see is that people with money are moving in and people who are a different color are moving out and thus it is evil. Why don't you raise some money, buy some of these properties, fix them up and improve them and rent them out for below market rates if you are so enlightened and generous, or is that only with other people's money?

1. You know what else carries more than one "iota of risk"? Hiring someone with an intellectual disability such as Autism or Down Syndrome. Their unemployment is hovering around 80% regardless of the documented benefits to society, the workplace and of course the individual. It's absolutely absurd that the only solution to structural problems like this is to "start a business". It almost implies that if you don't have the drive/time/skills to do be entrepreneurial, then your complaints about the system are invalidated.

2. Those "benefits" are moot if the longtime residents can no longer afford to live there and thus partake in them. As for class vs. race probably a mixture of both. There's plenty of skeptical Nashville natives in rural(ish) areas bothered by other white people moving in, building McMansions, and bringing traffic, regardless of the fact that the local's land values go up from it. Again, why does the solution have to be starting a real estate company?

The ironic thing (I think) is your solution of people starting businesses would be much more possible with some sort of universal healthcare which (I think) you'd be very opposed to. Lots o' folks sticking with jobs they don't like just to have health insurance.

Since taxes are a bother, I assume you're in Williamson County.

 

[vwwtchr]

my dad got an engineering degree paying out of pocket cash while working summers at target, left with no loans, and graduated into an economy with not only a job, but a signing bonus.

every time a boomer tries and fails to utter at the "millennials are entitled, we worked for what we have" i laugh. what a joke.

you guys didnt work for *ing *. born on 3rd, thinking they hit a triple. and then of course ruined the field and game behind them because they didnt want to pay for anyone else to be born on third, even there own children. and promptly destroyed everything that got them born on third in the first place. being a white guy, born in the 50s, probably the easiest existence that has ever or will every happen in human history.

and there last coup de grace: ending the peaceful transition of political power in america because they are in need of so much ****ing therapy they dont realize that other people exist and are people too.

Oh cockerpunk, never change. An entitled whiny snot when it came to not respecting people who didn’t autocross, or buy the “right” type of car, or hell the “right” kind of paintball gun.

you’ve been insufferable since you’ve been on the Car Lounge, and I’m actually little happy you’ve refused to follow the normal trajectory most people go through. You know aging, realizing your sh!t stinks too, gaining empathy, and some self awareness.
But NO!! You’re determined to be a prick from birth to death, and I sort of admire that. It’s like screw gaining perspective, and achieving personal growth. You’ve got a market, and you’re not just going to abandon it.
Bravo sir.

Also for the record those boomers you decry also had multiple wars they were drafted for, economic uncertainty, and all the strife America went through

Lest you think it was all gumdrops and rainbows. But heck that too would take some intellectual curiosity and grace.

 

[unhappymeal]

Oh cockerpunk, never change. An entitled whiny snot when it came to not respecting people who didn’t autocross, or buy the “right” type of car, or hell the “right” kind of paintball gun.

you’ve been insufferable since you’ve been on the Car Lounge, and I’m actually little happy you’ve refused to follow the normal trajectory most people go through. You know aging, realizing your sh!t stinks too, gaining empathy, and some self awareness.
But NO!! You’re determined to be a prick from birth to death, and I sort of admire that. It’s like screw gaining perspective, and achieving personal growth. You’ve got a market, and you’re not just going to abandon it.
Bravo sir.

Also for the record those boomers you decry also had multiple wars they were drafted for, economic uncertainty, and all the strife America went through

Lest you think it was all gumdrops and rainbows. But heck that too would take some intellectual curiosity and grace.

There's no doubt that the Boomers had their struggles. It could not have been easy living through what at the time was the world on the knife's edge of annihilation, shifting domestic demographics (from the extended social family to the nuclear family) and America's imperialism that cost many their lives. The Boomer generation were the beneficiaries of many of world's first social programs, had the highest income/class mobility in history and have accrued the most wealth. At the same time, under the Boomer's leadership, we've seen: record financial liabilities for future generations; the hollowing out of social programs that they benefitted from; wage stagnation; declining real wealth for subsequent generations; income and wealth inequality that we haven't seen since the Gilded Age; the destruction of our planet (it was Boomers who passed laws to privilege the car over public transit, to favour oil over electric cars, to suppress reports of oil's effect on the climate, etc.); and, the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The point that (I think) he was trying to make (and he would be correct), is that in aggregate, the Boomers were the single most privileged generation in human history. At the same time, they've pulled up the ladder form under them. This is not a direct attack on you per se, but the actions of your generation and the steadfast refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation that your generation created.

Small wonder that the current generation isn't buying sports cars when they have all the above to contend with.

 

[RVAE34]

Few problems I see with this. First of all they keep talking about housing prices but fail to mention record low rates. So yes, houses are more expensive but low interest rates greatly reduce the monthly price in comparison to the 80's and 90's. Secondly, there is so much instant gratification buying these days so people are spending at record rates on just about everything else. Back then there was no internet so you were less likely to buy random stuff. Lastly, as mentioned, the majority just don't care about enthusiast vehicles these days. It's more about a to b and the illusion of saving the world by buying boring and bland vehicles only focusing on hybrid and electric etc.

Just my $.02

 

[bave]

1. You know what else carries more than one "iota of risk"? Hiring someone with an intellectual disability such as Autism or Down Syndrome. Their unemployment is hovering around 80% regardless of the documented benefits to society, the workplace and of course the individual. It's absolutely absurd that the only solution to structural problems like this is to "start a business". It almost implies that if you don't have the drive/time/skills to do be entrepreneurial, then your complaints about the system are invalidated.

You are talking about a very different risk profiles. I have employed people with Downs, and both were great employees, fwiw. I can't say I have employed people with autism, or at least obvious, but again my point about hiring isn't that I care about whether or not you can do a job which is effectively your question here, but rather whether or not you are bringing a potential legal or greater strategic problem to a business. For instance, I can't very well have an employee who is autistic that cannot communicate or is subject to having outbursts, not to any degree. That's not discriminatory against autistic people, it is a basic requirement of the job. If someone can do the job and is the best qualified person, then great, but the other caveats apply. This is different from someone who shows up with a potential legal issue. When you get the transgender, non-binary, political activist sort of issues showing up with employees it becomes a larger problem, because it ends up with employee conflict at best. When you have someone show up with facial tattoos in a customer facing business, it alienates customers. That's the risk, not the risk of the wage of the person. If the Down's employee doesn't work out because they can't do the job, I am not worried about being dragged into a legal/HR nightmare.

2. Those "benefits" are moot if the longtime residents can no longer afford to live there and thus partake in them. As for class vs. race probably a mixture of both. There's plenty of skeptical Nashville natives in rural(ish) areas bothered by other white people moving in, building McMansions, and bringing traffic, regardless of the fact that the local's land values go up from it. Again, why does the solution have to be starting a real estate company?

People are bothered by change, no matter who they are or what the change is. Have you heard of the concept of creative destruction? Effectively what it means is that advancement often comes at the price of destroying the old. It is the same thing in real estate. When you have stagnating, decaying real estate adjacent to vibrant healthy real estate it is simply a matter of time until the value becomes apparent and the struggling real estate will change hands on a wider scale in order to bring in new growth and development. Yes, it often results in those in the old neighborhood being displaced, but what is your solution? Do you want the San-Fran model of the Tenderloin where you block every redevelopment project so you can protect the drug dens and slums and simply delaying and pushing the development elsewhere? California is a great example of trying to use regulatory power to curtail real estate development. It hasn't work for ****.

The ironic thing (I think) is your solution of people starting businesses would be much more possible with some sort of universal healthcare which (I think) you'd be very opposed to. Lots o' folks sticking with jobs they don't like just to have health insurance.

Since taxes are a bother, I assume you're in Williamson County.

I always love when I hear people say "I would start a business if only I had universal healthcare". The easiest response in the world, entrepreneurs being blocked by their own personal healthcare expense is probably exceptionally limited. For one simple reason, if you don't make much money (ie: starting a business) you are likely to be getting free/heavily subsidized healthcare in the first place. However, I do think it is interesting that the claim that you can only start a business by being subsidized by the state in the first place is a real shining star example of an entrepreneur, right?

Do you really think I care about property taxes between Davidson, Williamson, Rutherford, or Wilson county taxes? They are all trivial relatively.

The point that (I think) he was trying to make (and he would be correct), is that in aggregate, the Boomers were the single most privileged generation in human history. At the same time, they've pulled up the ladder form under them. This is not a direct attack on you per se, but the actions of your generation and the steadfast refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation that your generation created.

What is "the ladder" you are referring to? What specifically do you think the boomers should have, or should, do differently?

Few problems I see with this. First of all they keep talking about housing prices but fail to mention record low rates.

This is a good point. It ignores the fact that it was common to see interest rates of 18-20% for mortgages in the last 70's and early 80's. The other issue is that it is often complaining about evolutionary changes. In the 1950's the demand for prime real estate near desirable locations was much lower, you can't expect prices to remain the same for a finite quantity of something despite demand having grown exponentially.

 

[turbinepowered]

Lastly, as mentioned, the majority just don't care about enthusiast vehicles these days. It's more about a to b and the illusion of saving the world by buying boring and bland vehicles only focusing on hybrid and electric etc.

Here's the chicken:egg question: did flagging interest in enthusiast cars lead the rising costs of such vehicles (price, insurance, fuel costs, registration) or lag that burden?

When I was looking at first cars, I'd have loved to get something sporty, but insurance nixed that. Even buying something with two doors would have tripled my insurance rates, because "omg sporty, kid's gonna kill someone!"

One insurance company even tried to quote me those prices for a Beetle, to tell you how ridiculous it was. That'll put a damper on getting into sporty vehicles early, which I'm sure affects the enthusiasm later when money is less of an issue.

That doesn't even touch the fact that everyone with a quick car selling at the time thought they had a block of gold; I ended up in an old Ranger for $500 and a carburetor instead, much cheaper to insure and buy.

Owning a car is expensive. I have several friends with no license, even in their thirties. They rely on public transit, augmented occasionally with a rideshare service, because the economics of buying and maintaining a vehicle just don't make sense for them. They need that money elsewhere to live within their means.

As for labelling all hybrids and EVs bland and boring... Well, nah. If you don't want to actually look at what's on offer, I won't waste breath arguing with you.

 

[vwwtchr]

There's no doubt that the Boomers had their struggles. It could not have been easy living through what at the time was the world on the knife's edge of annihilation, shifting domestic demographics (from the extended social family to the nuclear family) and America's imperialism that cost many their lives. The Boomer generation were the beneficiaries of many of world's first social programs, had the highest income/class mobility in history and have accrued the most wealth. At the same time, under the Boomer's leadership, we've seen: record financial liabilities for future generations; the hollowing out of social programs that they benefitted from; wage stagnation; declining real wealth for subsequent generations; income and wealth inequality that we haven't seen since the Gilded Age; the destruction of our planet (it was Boomers who passed laws to privilege the car over public transit, to favour oil over electric cars, to suppress reports of oil's effect on the climate, etc.); and, the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

The point that (I think) he was trying to make (and he would be correct), is that in aggregate, the Boomers were the single most privileged generation in human history. At the same time, they've pulled up the ladder form under them. This is not a direct attack on you per se, but the actions of your generation and the steadfast refusal to acknowledge the reality of the situation that your generation created.

Small wonder that the current generation isn't buying sports cars when they have all the above to contend with.

One I’m not a boomer, just someone able to have enough perspective not to simply blame one generation as I understand we’re all in it together.

Second let’s be real young people don’t vote so they can fvck off complaining about policies, candidates, or legislation they don’t agree with.

Young people have through America’s history never voted but made up for it with a disproportionate amount of whining and complaining. That continues today.

Third if you really want to be pedantic you could blame the greatest generation as they were overwhelmingly the ones voting for candidates and serving as politicians that advocated these positions you’re decrying.

Fourth no one “pulled up the ladder” for success. That’s loser talk. There were factories closing 40 years ago as we were being supposedly overwhelmed by Japanese manufacturing. That would have been happening to boomers in their late 20’s to early 30’s. Don’t remember them whining about how the greatest generation “screwed them”.

Yet in our country innovation continued, job industries sprouted up while others slowly died. That has been a part of our country from its inception, and will continue to be so.

so if it’s soooo bad for the mid 20’s Twitter mafia they should actually you know participate in our democracy by voting in candidates they support. Senior citizens vote at a rate 100% higher than 18-29 do.
Is it any wonder senior citizens needs are more often met?
Is it any wonder the segment of the electorate least likely to vote doesn’t get their needs met?