this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
308 points (97.5% liked)

News

23371 readers
4849 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
308
‘Seismic shift’: driving unaffordable for many in US amid push toward SUVs (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago by dantheclamman@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
155 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] brognak@lemm.ee 106 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

Repeal CAFE standards, or just delete the entire catagory of "light truck". If it doesn't have a bed, its not a fucking truck. This entire fucked situation is literally just automakers not wanting to be bothered to make fuel efficient cars when you can call everything a fucking truck and be mostly exempt from having to comply with the far stricter regulations around smaller passenger vehicles MPG standards.

And the automakers give zero shits since they make so much more selling these larger utterly pointless vehicles rather than smaller, more economical ones.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 59 points 9 months ago (1 children)

tax light trucks heavily unless the owner can prove they use it for business purposes, like construction or farming

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Light trucks is kinda a crazy category. It's lighter vehicles that

(1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle, or (2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (3) Available with special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use

Vans, minivans, SUVs, and crossovers are mostly categorized as light trucks. Most vehicles on the road are light trucks; they outsell cars right now 3 to 1

[–] Poach@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

And pedestrian fatalities are are on the rise for some reason. Can't imagine why

[–] CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Not to "make rules for me" but I do think minivans should get a category of some kind - it puts all it's points in function, and none in sport/SUV, is the most efficient user of space, and generally reasonable hood height. Plus I'm not buying one to brag or strut my stuff.

[–] brognak@lemm.ee 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I used to haul my four wheeler around in the back of my mom's town and country in high school. It was crazy easy to load and unload since the rear deck was so low. Just pulled the seats out, put a tarp down, setup the ramps and pushed it in since it was such a shallow angle. Worked great, did it a couple dozen times.

Minivans are more useful utility vehicles than most modern trucks and I'll die on this hill. The bed height on modern trucks alone is kind bogglingly idiotic.

I'd love something between an Astrovan and a traditional minivan.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There's one flaw in the design: frontal cross section. They sit as low to the ground as a sedan, but are as tall as a crossover. This makes their aerodynamics terrible.

I'd still prefer one over a crossover, because we haul things on a regular basis and a minivan with the rear-most seats out would be more practical for us. Nobody makes an EV minivan yet, though. Closest thing is the Ford Transit EV, but it's only sold to commercial customers, and its range is limited.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ExLisper@linux.community 104 points 9 months ago (8 children)

If anyone would care to read the article it's more about companies making more high end cars and running low stocks than making cars bigger. They reduced stock during the pandemic and discovered that they can make more money selling fewer cars with maxed out specs than a lot of base models. They simply don't have base models on stock now and people still have to buy cars so profits are soaring. Basically they made everyone depend on cars by killing public transport and are now milking it hard. Because what are you going to do? Work from home?

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 28 points 9 months ago (11 children)

Good thing China isn't ready to flood the market with millions of cheap electric cars. This short term profit is going to end up biting them in the ass real quick. Although I guess they know they'll just get bailed out, so there's no reason to innovate.

[–] JeffKerman1999@sopuli.xyz 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Not to worry: protectionism will take take of the competition. Just like they did with the Japanese manufacturers...

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Yeah no one drives a Honda or Toyota 🙄🤣

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 25 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Oh hey almost exactly like the housing issue... Greedy fucking companies realized they made more making McMansions than starter houses so no one makes reasonable houses anymore and we're all stuck trying to buy 4+ bedroom overpriced shit...

There's no way this could be bad for society at large especially when driving is pretty much mandatory outside of cities. Nah, it couldn't be bad because it's good for corporations. Not that anyone cares. Externalities is just a fancy word...

Remember: can't afford life? Move to a low cost of living area and drive 2 hours to work! ....wait...

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Remember: can’t afford life? Move to a low cost of living area and drive 2 hours to work! …wait…

The article even mentions some research that in the suburbs people with cars tend to get better jobs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] GhostFence@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That's a lot of words to say "Cartel". Car...tel... get it?

I'm here all day, folks! 👍

Here’s a hint: the automakers are doing great. By essentially coordinating an industry-wide production cut, the pandemic gave manufacturers power to demand mind-boggling prices for fewer cars, leading to record profits. As consumers adjusted their expectations, executives saw an opportunity to establish a lucrative new normal. Low inventory is an “opportunity to drive strong margins”, GM’s CEO, Mary Barra, told shareholders in 2022. Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, went even further, declaring: “I want to make it extremely clear to everyone: we are going to run our business with a lower day supply than we have had in the recent past because that’s good for our company.”

Also see: collusion... market manipulation... fauxflation.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] maness300@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I've noticed this trend in other businesses, as well.

They've realized it's more profitable to screw over fewer people harder than it is to try to appease more customers with better deals. The most notable example of this to me would be the fast food industry.

It's a win-win, because they get to expend fewer resources due to fewer customers and they make more money with each transaction.

Fuck greed and anyone who supports it.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 94 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Maybe it's my interest in economics, but American life is so expensive in part because Americans are willing to spend a shit ton of money because they think they're supposed to. It's like we're all enamored with the idea that bigger and more is better just because someone said so. And then we complain about things being unaffordable like corporations aren't trying to fleece us for all we're worth.

[–] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 78 points 9 months ago (5 children)

I’ve heard it said that Americans purchase based on the maximal use case as opposed to the typical use case. As an American, that description makes so much sense. As an example, I live in an area where there are a lot of hills and it snows rarely, but just about everyone who can afford a 4WD SUV has one. Heaven forbid they can’t drive around on those 1-2 days a year that it snows! Meanwhile, they get shitty gas mileage driving to work the other 300-odd days of the year.

[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 31 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The maximal use case! That's a good way of thinking about it!

I'm struggling with my SO to buy a reasonable house in a high cost of living area. They want a massive 2000 Sq ft monstrosity because we plan to have a kid soon, and I'm thinking 1500 is more than enough. They're reasoning it's we need space for each other and entertaining. My reasoning is I want to eat out at the nearby fantastic restaurants nearby more often and buy cheese and wine and stuff.

[–] zeekaran@sopuli.xyz 25 points 9 months ago (4 children)

The more walkable the location of the house, the less space you need because that space is outside your house.

[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 15 points 9 months ago (5 children)

US cities are rapidly running out of 3rd places. There's almost no neighborhood commercial centers with a cafe and a pub/bar that you can visit for extended periods of time.

The net result is that the home and the workplace are the primary locations we can spend time in.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] MudMan@kbin.social 12 points 9 months ago (63 children)

I had to use a unit converter, but I've lived in places housing up to seven people that weren't that big. Comfortably.

This is a conversation I had here recently as well when I pointed out to a car thread that for the money Americans pay for pickup trucks you can also buy a hatchback and a proper van, cover most use cases and not drive a tank to take kids to school. They did NOT like that.

load more comments (63 replies)
[–] IMALlama@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

We have two kids in a 3 bed/2 bath 1350 sq ft home. We do have a full basement, but the kids aren't really allowed down there (power tools, toy stash, etc). I guess I do hang out there some nights, but that's only because my gaming computer moved downstairs years ago when our oldest started to be able to reach the keyboard and pull key caps off it.

In our experience, you're probably not going to do a lot of entertaining while you have young kids. While one of your kids is under 3-4, and sometimes older, they're going to need naps. They're also going to have early bedtimes. Naps are mostly behind us, and we do have afternoon play dates, but the kids don't really care what space they're in as long as they're engaged and have things to do. Having an adult gathering is... very rare. We have a nice sized yard, so we tend to have gatherings outside.

I don't think we need extra bedrooms or bigger bedrooms/bathrooms. An office might be nice, but working from the basement works just as well. A toy room could be nice, but to me it would be wasted space as the kids get older and have fewer, but larger/more engaging, toys. At least around here, the extra room comes with extra walls that result in a space that's not often used (think a formal dining room).

There's also the financial side of things. We could afford a larger house, but would rather be putting any extra into 529s, our own 401ks, etc. Kid related expenses really add up before you start also thinking about a bigger mortgage payment.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I’m always blown away seeing these blue collar guys driving around these $50-80k trucks that probably get 8 mpg. How do they afford this?

[–] JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Debt to their eyeballs

[–] TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id 5 points 9 months ago

Also some of them are paid very well. Any of your unionized specialty trades can easily make $150k+ a year, especially if they're willing to travel or work a lot of OT. If you're single or married with no kids, you can pretty easily afford a big fancy truck like that.

If you're willing to travel that can be more than $50k a year in per diem pay, so in two years you can easily pay off a new trailer to live in and a nice truck to haul it with. I personally know people who have done exactly this. The catch is that you need to get into a good union and do your apprenticeship and generally have your shit together. It always surprises me that more people don't know this.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] iamjackflack@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Stop buying SUVs and expensive cars!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BenM2023@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Can't have the poors driving - they should be working! cf. Drive to eliminate internal combustion driven vehicles and replace with EVs as well.

[–] BlueLineBae@midwest.social 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Don't worry! Well make them all return to the office so that 90% of them are forced to commute via car. That means they'll have to buy one even if they can't afford it! It's genius and there's definitely no other way this can be done because otherwise they will miss out on all that important in-office interaction bullshit!

[–] GluWu@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

It blows my mind how many people are paying nearly my rent on their car payment. We've already normalized having 48+ month financing on cars people would never even think about buying because it's 2 years salary instead of a 2 months. But you can pay $800 every month, right?

Better not lose the job you need the car for that you need to pay for the car payment because miss a few and all those payments go bye-bye, it's repo time! Then good luck getting a job, if you can't pay your car payment, you won't even be able to afford a clapped out 94 civic with 200k for $5k. Maybe if you just move out for a few months you can save up enough to get that car. Just a few months on friends couches or in motels, then it will be okay. Then you'll get back on your feet.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Seems like this would be a good time for foreign car companies to take advantage of the US automakers entrenched positions again like Japan did in the 1970s.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago (6 children)

Well, I gotta save for a Chrysler 300 because that's the only company who isn't lobbying against right to repair.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

Chrysler is probably only doing it because they already design their vehicles to be a huge pain in the ass to repair. I remember my buddy having to remove his wheel to replace his battery in his intrepid because the only access was via the wheel well.

I've also heard a story about Toyota where they would buy competitor vehicles to disassemble them and see what they were up to and they stopped bothering to even look at Chrysler vehicles because they didn't have anything useful to learn from their designs.

[–] evranch@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I just bought an old diesel Mercedes that I'm hoping will last me until the next era of car technology. I can't believe how easy it is to work on, almost as if it was designed to be maintained instead of to discourage the owner from doing so.

Currently it's had only 200k of its reputed million miles used up, so it has a long way to go yet!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cynnith@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Chrysler dealership wants $450 to diagnose an issue on my 200. Local shop directed me to them because it was an electronics issue that they would need to repair. Not sure I would trust Chrysler either.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

the average used car lists at more than $26,000

Craig's list is your friend. Giant pile of cars there for four digits.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 19 points 9 months ago (1 children)

ones that run are in the high four digits, and the days of a sub $1000 running beater are over

[–] doc@kbin.social 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I'm hanging on to my sub $1000 beater. Late 90s Civic with 240k miles and no clear coat still has better mpg than our newish CRV.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 months ago

I like how the article mentions: The preferred solution of many planners – replace car trips with transit – faces difficult odds in this country. Yet the last paragraph discusses s proposed solution being provide money to help lower income people buy and maintain cars.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

It's a good thing we give them so much TAXPAYER money! I'd MUCH rather give THESE men my Money then STARVING CHILDREN!

load more comments
view more: next ›