(05-28-2015 09:03 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and..............

What car would you rather have? A union made one or a non union made one.

THIS FROM A UNION GUY. They slit their own throats.

Couldn't care less either way. I am looking for value. We bought my wife's in '08 when she was pregnant with our first and needed a big car. Oil prices were through the roof and the economy was tanking and we managed to get a steal on an '04 Buick Rendezvous for $9k with only 24,000 miles. It now has 115k miles and we haven't put a dime into it aside from the occasional oil change, tires, and a few small jobs to pass inspection. You saw my car above. That is a Volvo. For some reason, this model happens to lose value quickly so I got it for next to nothing. They started it in '99 and discontinued in '04. Mine is an '04 so all the issues were sorted out. That is another thing I look at... I would never buy a model in its first few years of production. There are always major issues that take a few years to diagnose and fix for the later years. This is an even bigger issue being I buy cars that are old enough that there is no warranty.

(05-28-2015 08:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I do, but you guys don't like my ideas there and I do see the problems with them also. I was having a cognac with a retired teaching friend of mine and we discussed this at length. Prtobably the biggest downfalls of the union were he UAW guys. My Dad was one of them but he had a work ethic. Too many of them really didn't. They stole from them. I remember a neighbor outfitting his boat with materials from "generous motors". Stuff was really out of control at the height of their power, but the pendulum has swung too far in the counter balance.

I'm all ears. Especially from the right. What is the rights answer to Ever's question.

(05-28-2015 09:01 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  When the unions starting caring more about protecting the lazy and unfit that's where we went off the rails. A lot of truth to that.

Mach, this is all most people have wanted you to admit. Unions abused the trust and loyalty they once held with the American public and once lost such things are damn near impossible to recover from. I share your lament because they are a good idea. Maybe if they could strive to form associations much like German businesses have with their, it would be them on the path of trustworthiness.

We also have to look at the very basic idea that "People who work live better than people who don't". That's why I never understood the Obamacare argument from the right. Health Care was already free for the poor and a lot of times it was better than most. As long as you got on the Medi Caid you were set. i know this because my daughter was a Medi Caid waiver and her insurance was vastly superior to mine. The people who were without insurance were the working poor. That's a fact. We need honest conversations. We have more middle ground than we both think. Just need to approach things with honesty.

(05-28-2015 08:47 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy told me find a car that's three years old and drive it for 3 years. You won't lose much.

More like buy a three year old car and drive it until the wheels fall off! Use the 10-15 years of no car payments to make extra principal payments on the mortgage or up your 401k contribution.

I'm the same way. I have never spent more than $9,000 on a car (my wife's)... and that one is an '04 and was paid off 3 years ago (bought it in '08). My car is also an '04 and I bought it last year. My monthly payment is $120 and it looks like a $40k car.

I just paid top dollar (7K) for a '95 Sierra SLE in mint condition with 80K miles on a 5.7L 350 V8......10K is the most I have ever/will spent on a truck/car

(05-28-2015 09:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:54 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:45 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:06 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 07:04 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  How many rigties talk like Ever? They are few and far between. I tend to side with Ever on these matters but you do have to look at the overall effect. Free trade doesn't exist in a vacuum. I wonder where Wal Mart hauled that corn in from. It was really good. 10 cents an ear. It just got me thinking about other things too. Look at the price of clothes. Oil changes. Wal Mart has done some good too. I can't stand the way they treat their employess but if they don't treat them that way in 10 years they will be K Mart or Sears. Dying on the vine. I want an honest assessment on free trade and it's effects on America as a whole. Ohio's manufacturing base has been decimated. I honestly see both sides of this. It's a definite grey area.

Thanks Mach, I am my own man and don't pigeon hole myself into a category. I also have an MBA, and with my argumentative and skeptical personality, I can see through the talking points on both sides of these issues. I don't take "expert" opinion with anything but a grain of salt, be it a banker, economist, climate scientist, or psychiatrist. You have to prove it to me. Simply saying, "globalism is the way of the future" or "if we don't do this we will get left behind" doesn't cut it with me.

In a vacuum, the free trade theory is solid. Trust me, the calculus verifies, but as you said, the current situation is not a vacuum (not even close). On taxes, I am right wing. On spending and deficits, I am right wing. On some issues like this one, I am probably closer to Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders than Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio.

I would argue that the main effect globalization has had on the US is creating a disconnect between the pricing and jobs. While Mach bemoans Wal-Mart and has some legit bones to pick with them, you can't argue that their pricing has increased accessibility to those at the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum. I've not seen a study related to it, but I'm sure cheap TV and radios have contributed to a reduction in burglaries.

Obviously stagnant wages is an issue, but is the best way to address that problem by increasing salaries or should efforts be directed more towards further reducing the price of things? I tend to think the focus should be on the latter.

How would you increase salaries? I don't mean raising the minimum wage either, I am talking lower-middle class to middle-class income. Does anyone have a plan to address this?

Well since I come from the POV that that it's the goods that are too expensive, that's where I'd like to focus the efforts. As HOD mentioned earlier, why have cars remained immune to the price decrease that has crippled other areas of the economy? With unlimited access to knowledge at this point, education should not cost nearly as much as we spend on it in the US. How does Tylenol still make money for Beyer ever though the generic version is just as effective?

I just think some products are artificially high for the purpose of keeping businesses highly profitable as opposed to getting by on the razor thin margins that say grocery stores have to deal with. If the average salaries is going to be between $35-45K then I think serious consideration needs to be given to some type of basic income guarantee.

How do you have a basic income guarantee? Can we exempt teenagers or dependents living with parents and working part-time or FT summer jobs? These kids need to work, but don't need to be costing businesses $15-$20 per hour plus benefits. We need jobs that grown men and women can work and live off of, not traditionally minimum wage jobs that teenagers and dependents should be working.

I'm a car guy myself.

Cars are nothing but money pits from a financial perspective, but I do love them.

(05-28-2015 09:21 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We also have to look at the very basic idea that "People who work live better than people who don't". That's why I never understood the Obamacare argument from the right. Health Care was already free for the poor and a lot of times it was better than most. As long as you got on the Medi Caid you were set. i know this because my daughter was a Medi Caid waiver and her insurance was vastly superior to mine. The people who were without insurance were the working poor. That's a fact. We need honest conversations. We have more middle ground than we both think. Just need to approach things with honesty.

Well my objections to the ACA was that it created another medical insurance administration when the US already run about 5 different systems. Combined with the fact that ACA did nothing to increase the supply of medical professionals. I was completely OK with Medicare for all and wouldn't have minded an increase in withholding if their was a guarantee the reimbursements would have gone up to 80-90%.

(05-28-2015 09:22 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:47 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy told me find a car that's three years old and drive it for 3 years. You won't lose much.

More like buy a three year old car and drive it until the wheels fall off! Use the 10-15 years of no car payments to make extra principal payments on the mortgage or up your 401k contribution.

I'm the same way. I have never spent more than $9,000 on a car (my wife's)... and that one is an '04 and was paid off 3 years ago (bought it in '08). My car is also an '04 and I bought it last year. My monthly payment is $120 and it looks like a $40k car.

I just paid top dollar (7K) for a '95 Sierra SLE in mint condition with 80K miles on a 5.7L 350 V8......10K is the most I have ever/will spent on a truck/car

I don't even remember what I paid for the Volvo pictured. I think it was around $7k and had 72k miles, but my previous car was totaled when I got hit by a DUI driver and I had a few thousand in equity in it. I wound up financing the minimum $5,000 through my bank and then still making a good principle payment with the check.

(05-28-2015 08:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I do, but you guys don't like my ideas there and I do see the problems with them also. I was having a cognac with a retired teaching friend of mine and we discussed this at length. Prtobably the biggest downfalls of the union were he UAW guys. My Dad was one of them but he had a work ethic. Too many of them really didn't. They stole from them. I remember a neighbor outfitting his boat with materials from "generous motors". Stuff was really out of control at the height of their power, but the pendulum has swung too far in the counter balance.
I'm all ears. Especially from the right. What is the rights answer to Ever's question.

You can't increase salaries by simply paying people more to do minimal jobs. What you need in order to have real increases is to attract (not create, attract) more jobs that generate greater economic value and thus can be paid more affordably. We have to reverse the transition from a producer economy to a retail/service economy. The problem with a retail/service economy is that there are a lot of minimum wage jobs in retail and service, but not a lot of $60,000-$100,000/year jobs in retail and service. How many employees at your local Wal-Mart store do you think make $80,000? That's the problem, not whether the bottom ones make $7.50 or $15 an hour. Either way, they're still not middle class.

In the 1950s, the US was the most favorable place to earn a profit for many reasons, including that we had (even at a 90% top rate) one of the most favorable tax structures in the world (primarily because of the multitude of loopholes, so that nobody came even remotely close to paying 90%), and that among advanced nations we had one of the few infrastructure systems that had not been blown to bits in WWII. We had the highest wages, but that was offset by the highest productivity. Europe has caught up with us in infrastructure, and our tax structure has gone from most favorable to least.

Stop worrying about trying to compete with China. We don't want the jobs that are going there because they're only marginally better than retail, and China can't compete for the jobs we want because their labor force can't execute them. Our real competition is Europe and other advanced countries, the ones we beat in the 1950s. We don't have a wage and salary gap with them--they generally make slightly less, but they work less and their benefits more than make up the difference. We have a tax gap with them and we have a regulatory gap with them.

Tax gap with Europe? Yes, Europe has a higher total tax bite. But they get the difference through consumption taxes, which don't affect investment decisions, leaving them free to have lower and flatter income tax structures, which do impact business and investment decisions.

As for the regulatory gap, in many places their regulations are substantively stronger. But here's the difference--their regulatory procedures are generally more streamlined. And another big factor is that regulation in Europe tends to be much more cooperative and less adversarial than here. So if I need an answer to drive a business decision, I can typically get that answer quicker in Europe. And most companies are willing to spend more to comply if they have more certainty about the decision.

As Hambone noted in another thread, Europe is now beating us in having a better social safety net at they same time they are beating us at being more attractive to business. That's a dynamite combination, and we need to learn from how they do it.

So, here's how I would go about competing with Europe and beating them:
1) Beat their safety net with a combination of 1) either Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund and 2) French Bismarck health care. That also takes care of the "people who work should live better than people who don't work" and "welfare trap" problems.
2) Beat their tax system by going to a flat tax and/or consumption tax. I actually like a combination of the two because you can keep the rates on both sides lower. A 15% consumption tax across the board, plus a15% flat tax on all business and investment earnings, plus setting Social Security taxes at 15% total (half employer, half employee) and removing the income cap, plus elimination of the individual income tax altogether, would generate something on the order of an additional $200-400 billion a year, plus make us way more than merely competitive for investment dollars.
3) Beat them on productivity by drastically upgrading our infrastructure and education. Here I mean improving actual quality by adopting best practices from around the world, not throwing more money at demonstrably failed approaches.

I have other ideas, but those are the biggies.

(05-28-2015 09:37 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 09:22 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:47 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy told me find a car that's three years old and drive it for 3 years. You won't lose much.

More like buy a three year old car and drive it until the wheels fall off! Use the 10-15 years of no car payments to make extra principal payments on the mortgage or up your 401k contribution.

I'm the same way. I have never spent more than $9,000 on a car (my wife's)... and that one is an '04 and was paid off 3 years ago (bought it in '08). My car is also an '04 and I bought it last year. My monthly payment is $120 and it looks like a $40k car.

I just paid top dollar (7K) for a '95 Sierra SLE in mint condition with 80K miles on a 5.7L 350 V8......10K is the most I have ever/will spent on a truck/car

I don't even remember what I paid for the Volvo pictured. I think it was around $7k and had 72k miles, but my previous car was totaled when I got hit by a DUI driver and I had a few thousand in equity in it. I wound up financing the minimum $5,000 through my bank and then still making a good principle payment with the check.

This guy has the best attitude about cars, and it is a pretty good song too. About halfway through he tells this story about buying the car in the song. You might just enjoy hearing it.

(05-28-2015 08:09 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy told me find a car that's three years old and drive it for 3 years. You won't lose much.

More like buy a three year old car and drive it until the wheels fall off! Use the 10-15 years of no car payments to make extra principal payments on the mortgage or up your 401k contribution.

I'd rather spend as little as possible on a home, and use the money that I'm not burying into a mortgage payment to actually enjoy life while you're still young enough to.

Homes can be chains of debt slavery if you're not careful. Even 15 years (for a short mortgage) can feel like an eternity.

A home is probably most peoples largest and most valuable asset. The key is location...just like any real estate.

(05-27-2015 05:57 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 10:39 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 10:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 10:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  If you want to see inflation take a look at the price of new cars.

You can't buy a decent new vehicle for less than $30k.

The Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, and Toyota Camry can be bought for well under $30,000. If you do the scheduled maintenance and don't abuse them, all three will go at least 300,000 miles.

"Decent"

Dang HofD! You have expensive tastes in cars if you think those three aren't decent. I drive em till they roll on to the shoulder and wont go anymore. Also, buying used is always a great way to get more for your money.

gotta agree with the libs on this one, HOD. My trusty Honda is just about at 300,000 and going strong. No rust, well-maintained, a couple minor dents, but I'm gonna keep it at least until 700,000, and hopefully 1,000,000 miles!

Here's another take on what a "decent" car is:

Saying No To New Cars
from daveramsey.com on 09 Jun 2010

Thinking about buying a new car?

Try this instead: Take your current car out for a drive, open the window, and repeatedly throw $100 bills out the window. Now that sounds dumb, doesn’t it? But when you buy a new car, you’re doing the same thing the moment you take it off the lot.

If you’re a millionaire, then feel free to go nuts and buy yourself a shiny, new car. But 98% of Americans simply can’t afford it. You’ll save a ton of money and heartache if you will just buy used!

So why are we making such a big deal about new cars? One word: depreciation. New cars lose 70% of their value in the first four years. When you buy used, the original owner has already eaten the cost of depreciation. You, on the other hand, get a great four-year-old car for a great deal—one well below the expensive wholesale prices of new cars.

Let’s dig just a little deeper. Say that you are thinking about financing a new car with payments of $400 a month, just a little below the average car payment. Your current car is worth around $1,500. If you take that $400 and pay yourself, instead of the dealer, you’ll have a $4,000 paid-for-with-cash car in just 10 short months.

Sell your old car and you’ll have $1,500 to bank as you continue saving $400 a month. Ten months later, you have $5,500 for a used car. Repeat this process again, and you’ll have a $10,000 car just 30 months after you started saving. How much more sense does that make than buying a new car and watching its value drop like a rock?

Used car lots are overflowing. Millions of cars come from expired leases. For-sale-by-owner magazines are easy to find. Usually, the best deals come from individuals who are eager to get rid of their cars. They have one car to sell, not hundreds of cars like a dealer, so they will be more desperate to get the car out of their yard. Also, call some of the banks in your area and ask them how they dispose of their repossessions. Repo auctions are a great way to find good deals.

Before you buy a used car, make sure you come prepared. Know the value of the car you are considering. Visit websites like KBB, Edmunds and Carmax and do your research, especially if you are working with a dealer.

Remember, unless you’re a millionaire, you can’t afford a new car because you can’t take the hit in depreciation! The new car smell just isn’t worth it.

My bad guys, I only partially clarified what I meant.

Today, decent is less for your money than it was 15 years ago. The reason I say that is because given what is available in the industry the "decent" under 30k cars have no more real equipment than they did 10-15 years ago. Way more is available and yet the average Joe is forced to pay more for the same level of equipment, or rather a car at the same or lower percentile in terms of where it places in the industry as a whole.

(05-28-2015 09:12 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:09 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:47 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:11 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy told me find a car that's three years old and drive it for 3 years. You won't lose much.

More like buy a three year old car and drive it until the wheels fall off! Use the 10-15 years of no car payments to make extra principal payments on the mortgage or up your 401k contribution.

I'd rather spend as little as possible on a home, and use the money that I'm not burying into a mortgage payment to actually enjoy life while you're still young enough to.

Homes can be chains of debt slavery if you're not careful. Even 15 years (for a short mortgage) can feel like an eternity.

A home is probably most peoples largest and most valuable asset. The key is location...just like any real estate.

It's a paradigm shift due to the financial crises. I mean, people were actually paying off credit cards before mortgages. That is something previous folks would think absurb. I still think a home is one's best asset; however, folks now now values can go both ways.

(05-28-2015 11:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  My bad guys, I only partially clarified what I meant.

Today, decent is less for your money than it was 15 years ago. The reason I say that is because given what is available in the industry the "decent" under 30k cars have no more real equipment than they did 10-15 years ago. Way more is available and yet the average Joe is forced to pay more for the same level of equipment, or rather a car at the same or lower percentile in terms of where it places in the industry as a whole.

That is because they keep adding technology that most people don't care about or need. A new car with 1990s technology and no bells and whistles would probably cost about $5,000. I'd buy that.

(05-28-2015 11:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  My bad guys, I only partially clarified what I meant.

Today, decent is less for your money than it was 15 years ago. The reason I say that is because given what is available in the industry the "decent" under 30k cars have no more real equipment than they did 10-15 years ago. Way more is available and yet the average Joe is forced to pay more for the same level of equipment, or rather a car at the same or lower percentile in terms of where it places in the industry as a whole.

How much equipment does a car actually need? As long as the AC works and it runs well I really don't give a rip. I mean, I get what you're saying but a lot of people are enslaved to all the bells and whistles thinking it's a "must have".

Rear view camera for example.... FFS, learn to drive and parallel park.

(05-29-2015 07:18 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  My bad guys, I only partially clarified what I meant.

Today, decent is less for your money than it was 15 years ago. The reason I say that is because given what is available in the industry the "decent" under 30k cars have no more real equipment than they did 10-15 years ago. Way more is available and yet the average Joe is forced to pay more for the same level of equipment, or rather a car at the same or lower percentile in terms of where it places in the industry as a whole.

That is because they keep adding technology that most people don't care about or need. A new car with 1990s technology and no bells and whistles would probably cost about $5,000. I'd buy that.

Well you are getting a better performing, more fuel efficient engine, like the I-4 in the Buick Regal than can get 270 hp. But I do agree that a lot of tech is being added that most people would probably prefer to customize on their own. I'm the process of replacing my rides radio and CPU display with a tablet.

(05-29-2015 07:48 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 07:18 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  My bad guys, I only partially clarified what I meant.

Today, decent is less for your money than it was 15 years ago. The reason I say that is because given what is available in the industry the "decent" under 30k cars have no more real equipment than they did 10-15 years ago. Way more is available and yet the average Joe is forced to pay more for the same level of equipment, or rather a car at the same or lower percentile in terms of where it places in the industry as a whole.

That is because they keep adding technology that most people don't care about or need. A new car with 1990s technology and no bells and whistles would probably cost about $5,000. I'd buy that.

Well you are getting a better performing, more fuel efficient engine, like the I-4 in the Buick Regal than can get 270 hp. But I do agree that a lot of tech is being added that most people would probably prefer to customize on their own. I'm the process of replacing my rides radio and CPU display with a tablet.

Does the fuel economy make up for the difference in sticker price? Most of the time, no.

(05-29-2015 07:48 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 07:18 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  My bad guys, I only partially clarified what I meant.

Today, decent is less for your money than it was 15 years ago. The reason I say that is because given what is available in the industry the "decent" under 30k cars have no more real equipment than they did 10-15 years ago. Way more is available and yet the average Joe is forced to pay more for the same level of equipment, or rather a car at the same or lower percentile in terms of where it places in the industry as a whole.

That is because they keep adding technology that most people don't care about or need. A new car with 1990s technology and no bells and whistles would probably cost about $5,000. I'd buy that.

Well you are getting a better performing, more fuel efficient engine, like the I-4 in the Buick Regal than can get 270 hp. But I do agree that a lot of tech is being added that most people would probably prefer to customize on their own. I'm the process of replacing my rides radio and CPU display with a tablet.

I'd rather pay $5,000 for a vehicle that will get me 100,000 miles and 20 MPG and I can perform my own maintenance on than pay $20,000 for a vehicle that will get me 200,000 miles and 30 MPG if I take it to the dealership to get worked on every 3-6 months. Maybe it is just me, but simpler is better. Would be nice to at least have the option.

(05-29-2015 07:53 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 07:48 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-29-2015 07:18 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:47 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  My bad guys, I only partially clarified what I meant.

Today, decent is less for your money than it was 15 years ago. The reason I say that is because given what is available in the industry the "decent" under 30k cars have no more real equipment than they did 10-15 years ago. Way more is available and yet the average Joe is forced to pay more for the same level of equipment, or rather a car at the same or lower percentile in terms of where it places in the industry as a whole.

That is because they keep adding technology that most people don't care about or need. A new car with 1990s technology and no bells and whistles would probably cost about $5,000. I'd buy that.

Well you are getting a better performing, more fuel efficient engine, like the I-4 in the Buick Regal than can get 270 hp. But I do agree that a lot of tech is being added that most people would probably prefer to customize on their own. I'm the process of replacing my rides radio and CPU display with a tablet.

Does the fuel economy make up for the difference in sticker price? Most of the time, no.

Certainly not month to month. $120 monthly payment vs $500 monthly payment ($5,000 vs $20,000) is a lot of gas at a 10 MPG difference. Now in the long run, if the $20,000 car last you 15 years and 300,000 miles without having to put a lot money into it, where as you might have to buy 3 of the $5,000 cars in the same time, maybe, but it is no guarantee as lemons are still being produced left and right and the vast majority of people look at month to month and can't afford the initial investment or balance their checking account with $500 monthly car payment(s).