mmarshall

Actually, with the possible exception of Hyundai and Kia (which, of course, reflects their now-higher quality), new-car prices haven't really been going up that much, especially considering the number of features that are now standard on so many new vehicles.


As I see it, I'd bet that the main thing preventing more miles being driven today is the simple traffic-saturation of so many of our urban road systems (The L.A./SoCal and Washington, D.C. areas are considered the worst)...and many people are just sick and tired of sitting in traffic jams day after day. Plus, a lot of Baby-Boomers my age are retiring...and that takes some of the cars off the roads during rush-hours.

gengar

Compared to the 70s, car prices are definitely higher now overall. One reason is increasing government regulation and intervention (think safety regs, environmental regs, etc.) which have all contributed to raising the cost of vehicles. I wonder if anyone has crunched the numbers on particular segments of cars, though (for example, data on only budget cars).

True over maybe the last 10 years (I just read an article that suggested that inflation since the early 2000s has actually outpaced car prices). If you go back to the 70 or even 80s though, there's absolutely no comparison - prices are much higher now.


I would think all the empirical evidence out there would be sufficient to make the higher cost of urban centers obvious. Pro-urban government/bureaucrat talking heads like touting that higher population density means lower infrastructure cost for services, but even if that's true, it's not the only cost to residents. It's much more expensive to build monstrous high-rise towers out of concrete and steel than it is to build a single-family home. Then you have to add in all the other economic, non-financial costs, like having to deal with traffic.

If you need studies, plenty have been done on the subject especially regarding the impetus for companies to move to less-urban areas, not only to reduce their own costs but to improve quality of life for their employees. Just off the top of my head, the Brookings Institution did one of the studies on this a few years back.

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

Well of course it's more expensive to build a high-rise tower than a single family home... I'm sorry, but that's a pretty silly, insipid observation. The question is, do you really think it is more expensive to build and maintain a high-rise condo that can provide homes for 1000 invidivuals/familes in downtown than it is to build and maintain 1000 oversized, single-family homes in BFE? All logic, evidence, and reason that I know of says you're wrong if that's what you're trying to tell me.

Also, the studies you are talking about sound very anecdotal, and it is probably based on the expectation that many of the employees live in the same suburban area.

gengar

My evaluation was talking cost per square foot. I thought that much would be obvious. I guess it's easier to lash out at others for being "silly" or "insipid" then to try to give them any credit.

Rather than asking me for evidence only to flippantly dismiss it for "sounding" like it isn't true, maybe you should just go and do some google searches on the subject. I just now did a rough google search for comparisons of high-rise and single-family home construction costs, and among the very first 10 hits was a very interesting study on how much the density per acre of units affects construction cost, including a discussion of various factors (e.g., higher density like highrises means more complex parking systems, more required stairway/fire escape access, needing elevators / more elevators, etc., all of which greatly increase the cost).

You don't need to personally attack me just because you don't want to believe there are possible explanations for obvious empirical data that doesn't mesh with your desired belief of how the world works.

EDITED TO ADD: To avoid further accusations of "silly, insipid observations", all references to "cost" in the second paragraph are, obviously, per unit area.

RocketGuy3

iTrader: (1)

I'm sorry if I offended you... I hardly consider what I said a personal attack. I consider your post just now a lot closer to a personal attack (a passive aggressive one) than anything I've said. You shouldn't take these discussions personally.

I guess we had a bit of a misunderstanding. I am not concerned with price per square foot (to an extent) -- I am concerned with price per capita. Ultimately that's all that matters. I conceded in my first post on the topic that land and development will clearly be more expensive per unit area, but people in suburbs these days have way more space than they actually need, anyways. That is my feeling, and the feeling of many people in my generation, which is a big part of why this trend is occurring.

EDIT: Besides which, it is not necessarily true that in order to live in or near the heart of a big city, you need to live in a huge building in a high density area with a lot of traffic and parking problems. As a result of white flight, there is still a lot of cheap land available in urban areas that many young professionals are slowly grabbing hold of.

96SC4

iTrader: (2)

such a shame too... because one of the BEST trips of my life was driving across the country and back. I think everyone should do this at least once in their life.
But at $4 a gallon, i would now be hesitant...

LexFather

AMEN BROTHER!

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

i don't agree. the "70s" are now 40 years ago and a lot of inflation has taken place since then. also, standard equipment even besides safety is VASTLY increased. but even ignoring all that. my first car, a new 100hp honda prelude was about $13k out the door in 1983. 30 years later, i can get some econoboxes for not much more that have WAY WAY more equipment, and power.

i would say that in the last 10 years though, prices have jumped a lot - as steel and other material prices have jumped, and as you say, required safety equipment has skyrocketed.

gengar

You've actually got it backwards relative to figures from the BLS. Even inflation-adjusted, car prices today are about 25% higher than they were in the 70s, even despite having dropped nearly 10% in the last decade or so (again, inflation-adjusted).

I noted in my last post that a good deal of the increase is likely due to government intervention factors.

As I also noted, the BLS statistics may not reflect the price of, say, the "cheapest" car on the market or of the "cheapest" segment.