Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

What does your car really cost you?

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby Revi » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 09:27:43

China is getting into the car game, but they won't be able to match our rate before the music stops. They have the growing middle class who have aspirations, and more and more people will want to get a car. It's unstoppable. My parents had only one car for a while, then my mother got a job to pay for her car. It's going to be like that, because cars are the ultimate thing to have.

We are all used to having them, and it will be hard to get anyone to give them up.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 09:39:59

Revi wrote:China is getting into the car game, but they won't be able to match our rate before the music stops. They have the growing middle class who have aspirations, and more and more people will want to get a car. It's unstoppable. My parents had only one car for a while, then my mother got a job to pay for her car. It's going to be like that, because cars are the ultimate thing to have.

We are all used to having them, and it will be hard to get anyone to give them up.


I started out very doubtful civilization would crash as you imply, and after what has come about in the last five years I am back to believing humans will indeed muddle through.

That means, the music doesn't stop, the tune just changes to a different melody.

As you stated, the desire to have a car, as a status symbol as much as for any other reason, will still be present even if you have to come up with some extremely expensive alternative fuel to get to drive it.

Here is the thing people forget IMO, if your car is a status symbol then you want to display it from time to time to ensure others recognize you have the status that goes along with ownership. You don't have to show off a status symbol constantly so the actual fuel needs are less than what an American would consider normal with our crazy exurban commutes of 45-60 minutes each way. A status symbol can be driven 60 minutes a week and ensure your status being made plain to everyone.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby Revi » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 10:04:50

True, maybe we will slowly get out of the car game as we move back to farms, etc. and drive less and less. I think gasoline is an amazing and useful thing, but it would be far better used to split wood, make tortillas, etc.

Maybe we'll just keep our status symbol cars and drive them around occasionally telling ourselves that everything is just as it's always been for the next 20 -30 years.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 12:25:01

vtsnowedin wrote:
Revi wrote:The average person spends about $9000 a year on their car in the US. That's the total cost. That means if mom and dad and 2 kids have cars they are spending around $36,000 to keep everyone motoring. Very little money for anything else...

I don't know anyone supporting four average cars on one income.


How about 5? Admittedly, the wife is requiring me to sell one, but still...

vtsnowedin wrote: Two teenage drivers had better have part time jobs or they are not driving 15K average a year and if they need to commute to work the job better pay well. Half time job 1000 hours a year at $12/ hr is $12,000 and some of that should be going towards college.


Yup. The one is in college. The other will be taking light rail to his schooling in the near future. College is the real expense, my cars have been pretty cheap compared to what a college education costs nowadays. But with the downfall of American public education, you can't be cheap on getting them some proper learnin.

vtsnowedin wrote: My three all drove (well used) used cars while they were in school or could buy their own with Army money.


None of my kids want to support the military industrial complex in that way. Milk the parents! seems to be their battle cry. But used cars are cheap, insurance is cheap, why not 5? Or 8? At $3G/each, they would all cost less CapX then the single fancy EV the wife takes off to work.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 20:45:48

AdamB wrote:

None of my kids want to support the military industrial complex in that way. Milk the parents! seems to be their battle cry. But used cars are cheap, insurance is cheap, why not 5? Or 8? At $3G/each, they would all cost less CapX then the single fancy EV the wife takes off to work.

Having the experience I now have I would not recommend joining the military to any female relative. Another story for another thread. Or perhaps left unsaid.
What car they can afford with a bit of help from you depends on the part time job they have and their crash record.
My girls were not perfect but did not wreck any new cars or wreck any oncoming Mercedes or Beamers with lawyers in them. No personal injuries either in their cars or the cars they hit.
I am one lucky Dude. :)
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 19 Aug 2020, 12:35:27

Revi wrote:The average person spends about $9000 a year on their car in the US. That's the total cost. That means if mom and dad and 2 kids have cars they are spending around $36,000 to keep everyone motoring. Very little money for anything else...

I still scratch my head at this. It implies a LOT of VERY wasteful behavior, re car spending by Americans. (Funny how we're doomed and tens of millions of families are so poor they're on the brink of starvation (re fast crash doomers) and YET, people have OODLES of money to WASTE on fancy, expensive, downright STUPID car spending choices -- ESPECIALLY if finances are supposedly so very tight for the average US family.)

For me, my late model midsize Camry expenses look roughly like this (pre COVID-19, so more driving typically), my expenses are roughly:

1). $2000 a year depreciation an the car, assuming I buy it for $26,000 and sell it for $2000 a dozen years later. I pay cash so no interest payments. I buy toward the bottom end of the spectrum re features, since to my old ass, the bottom end re middle class new car features is AMAZING and LUXURIOUS and I'm not "suffering" at all -- oh, and I save ten to fifteen grand on things I don't need. (For example, instead of paying a dealer $1000 to $1500 for built in nav, I buy a nice, portable after-market system for $100 from Amazon, which works perfect -- and if it breaks or I want to upgrade the tech. in 5 or 8 years, no problem.)

(Oh, and I'm confident I can get $2000 for a 12 year old well maintained Camry with only 42,000 miles on it, given their reputation. If I can convince the buyer I'm not playing odometer games, I might get double that or even more).

2). $600 a year in insurance. This is full insurance from State Farm with a normal level of deductibles and extra liability, with a multi-policy discount. It's more than that early on, and less as the car ages, of course.

3). Driving about 300 miles a month on average, assuming gasoline prices of $3 a gallon over time, and getting about 25 mpg real world, that's $432 a year for gasoline. $100 a year for full synthetic oil change, the occasional air filter replacement, etc. And the way Toyotas hold up, If I allocate $470 a year for other maintenance and repairs, that's PLENTY to cover tires, which I replace every 6 or 7 years to prevent dry rot, fluids, brakes, and the occaisonal thing which might actually break. So that gives me $1000 a year for gas, oil, maintenance and repairs.

4). So then, things like licensing and incidentals like a nav system, jumper cables, electric tire pump, a few tools for the car, etc, and some buffer for repairs, let's call everything else $400 a year.

So I get $2000 depreciation, + $1000 gas/oil/maint + $600 insurance + $400 misc or $4000 a year TOTAL car expenses, and buy new convenient cars, and have others do all the work on the car beyond very minor things.

(Oh, and I could save a meaningful amount buying a used moderate mileage, say, Corolla every 6 years. I'm just talking about the lazy man's convenient way with no gotchas or assumptions about used cars, to make the numbers simple).

...

Now, I realize most people will spend $1200 more on gasoline and another oil change. And I realize most people will have more repairs when they drive the thing 150,000 miles in a dozen years instead of 42,000 miles.

But if we add $2000 a year MORE for gas, oil, and maintenance, we STILL only get $6000 a year to own a middle class car in the US.

Aside from thinking my car insurance is way cheap re no accidents, low mileage, my age, I still think MUCH of that final 3000 bucks per car per year is just CRAZY spending by preeners, on average. (Yes, I think blowing $50K and up on a truck, SUV, or sporty car is preening and wasteful, for people who don't have money to burn, and for the environment, regardless).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Wed 19 Aug 2020, 15:14:56

Consider that many construction oriented people spend more hours of each day in their truck or SUV then they do in their home. It is both transportation , office and lunch room. Then a $50K or $60K price tag seems less outrageous.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby REAL Green » Fri 28 Aug 2020, 06:10:16

'Empty Highways' - About 61 Million Americans Have Stopped Commuting In Post-Covid World”
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-fina ... ovid-world

“The survey's results of a reduction in commuting were echoed in a recent KPMG International report: The effects of COVID-19 will be felt for years. The response to the virus has accelerated powerful behavioral changes that will continue to shape how Americans use automobiles. We believe the changes in commuting and e-commerce are here to stay and that the combined effect of reduced commuting and shopping journeys could be as much as 270 billion fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) each year in the US. -KPMG”
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1080
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 28 Aug 2020, 09:53:04

"We believe the changes in commuting and e-commerce are here to stay"

Finally Zerohedge says something I agree with. Peak oil? What peak oil? Peak oil DEMAND more like it.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 28 Aug 2020, 12:48:52

I would not count on the reduction in VMT lasting more then a year. We will get past Covid-19 one way or the other and millions will get back to work and most will have to commute to their hands on jobs. You can't build or fix a house sitting on your couch with a lap top. People that are moving out of the city to avoid the crime and taxes will find cars essential in suburban and rural areas no matter the computer connection speed so you will have millions of previous urban subway riders now owning a car for the first time.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 28 Aug 2020, 15:04:08

vtsnowedin wrote:I would not count on the reduction in VMT lasting more then a year. We will get past Covid-19 one way or the other and millions will get back to work and most will have to commute to their hands on jobs. You can't build or fix a house sitting on your couch with a lap top. People that are moving out of the city to avoid the crime and taxes will find cars essential in suburban and rural areas no matter the computer connection speed so you will have millions of previous urban subway riders now owning a car for the first time.

I think it's somewhere in-between. Yes, we will get past (or 95% past) COVID in a year or three. OTOH, tech and robotics will continue to advance, and labor costs will ALWAYS matter a lot. So I see the proportion of folks able to work from home continuing to advance, but relatively gradually overall.

No doubt, you can't cook a meal (though robots may well be cooking MUCH of fast food as time goes on), or do almost any job on a house (which are relatively unique, vs. the standardized factory set-ups that can be designed as part of the cost case for automation), with today's robots. Or likely near-future robots.

But I think you CAN do a LOT of office jobs that are done in-office today from home, at least 50% to 80% of the time. I think a fair amount of sales jobs could also be done remotely, as long as the human salesperson is giving the customer plenty of attention. Same thing for stocking shelves, though again, I can see properly designed robotic systems doing a LOT of that -- and I can see online getting much more share, where that already happens in warehouses, unfettered by customers.

If I'm in Home Depot or a car parts store, etc, and want to ask a plumbing or part or tool or any other question, I'm just FINE asking a human I get from a kiosk or something -- as long as I get prompt, competent answers, vs. searching in VAIN for ANYONE to actually help -- or get someone who is incompetent, won't admit it (or doesn't know it) and is faking it, as often happens today.

And I actually like self-ordering at any place I get take-out food from today BETTER than I like talking to a person, if it's automated, like online. Zero errors re human error or misunderstanding from the employee. Zero problems with the employee not understanding basic English, being able to operate the register, knowing the menu, etc. I don't have to wait for a human (who may be doing three different tasks) to have time to take my order.

The government could help encourage this work at home where it works concept with small (per employee) but large cumulative tax credits, to get employees off the roads and off burning gasoline, when they are not NEEDED in the office. An employee working from home may not need very expensive child care.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby mousepad » Fri 28 Aug 2020, 15:29:34

Outcast_Searcher wrote:But I think you CAN do a LOT of office jobs that are done in-office today from home, at least 50% to 80% of the time. I think a fair amount of sales jobs could also be done remotely, as long as the human salesperson is giving the customer plenty of attention.


There's a lot of people that cannot handle home office well. The isolation, the lack of guidance and interaction.
The bunch of sales guys I work with are going insane. They have to work from home, but that's contrary to their personalities of outgoing, meeting, talking, traveling. It's kind of like forcing an introvert engineer out of his hiding-cubicle. It just doesn't go well for long.
mousepad
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 799
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Fri 28 Aug 2020, 15:46:37

mousepad wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:But I think you CAN do a LOT of office jobs that are done in-office today from home, at least 50% to 80% of the time. I think a fair amount of sales jobs could also be done remotely, as long as the human salesperson is giving the customer plenty of attention.


There's a lot of people that cannot handle home office well. The isolation, the lack of guidance and interaction.
The bunch of sales guys I work with are going insane. They have to work from home, but that's contrary to their personalities of outgoing, meeting, talking, traveling. It's kind of like forcing an introvert engineer out of his hiding-cubicle. It just doesn't go well for long.

For people who WANT to come in to some central place and work, that might turn out to be a competitive advantage in some situations. For the social person, that might be great.

Hey, I think it's a GOOD thing that you have various personality types suited to different kinds of jobs. I would HATE to be a salesperson long term, or for anything I didn't build myself. (The only "sales" I've done was demoing software I had built at a job during college, and I believed in the capabilities of the software, so I didn't mind doing that -- for one day). I don't think I implied IN ANY WAY that in the near or moderate term that driving to work was going away, especially for people who WANT to do that daily.

The point I was making is that modern technology is giving MANY people the CHOICE, and that given the costs of commuting (like time, dollars, pollution, a statistical level of deaths, injury, and property damage per mile driven over time, road lane-miles that need to be built and maintained) is that this CAN save society a lot of costs vs. everyone driving every day, even if they don't need or want to.

Re my salespeople comment, from about 1990 until the internet became relatively mature re the web after 2010, almost all the computer tech I've bought using salespeople was using experts over the phone. I knew what I wanted to know and they knew their stuff and could talk to me. Whether they work from their home or some cubicle farm, as long as they can competently answer my questions (or get the answers fairly quickly for hard questions) makes NO difference to me.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 28 Aug 2020, 19:21:44

I think we need to take a look at what portion of jobs require hands on physical presence. I do not have any reliable figures at hand. What portion of our economy is entertainment that can be delivered online? And what portion has to be delivered in person , hands on.? If all we can do is hands off via internet we will all starve or freeze to death in the dark. What task you really need can be done remotely? Perhaps one out of five.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 30 Aug 2020, 12:09:31

vtsnowedin wrote:I think we need to take a look at what portion of jobs require hands on physical presence. I do not have any reliable figures at hand. What portion of our economy is entertainment that can be delivered online? And what portion has to be delivered in person , hands on.? If all we can do is hands off via internet we will all starve or freeze to death in the dark. What task you really need can be done remotely? Perhaps one out of five.

I agree with your initial point, but NOT your conclusion at all.

First, a HELL of a lot of stuff is done by factories with VERY little human presence. And what human presence there is in such factories can often be spread out, sanitation measures can be employed, etc.

If, say, meat packing became untenable due to Covid-19 as it is done today (even with the measures already employed re employee safety), automation could be more heavily employed. Production would be impacted and prices would rise some, no doubt. But that does NOT mean we "all starve to death in the dark" in ANY way. It WOULD mean collectively we eat less meat, which would actually be a good thing re overall health and AGW, and there WOULD be lots of whining, but whining isn't freezing to death in the dark.

Second, a HELL of a lot of stuff can be delivered, at least in the first world. As long as Amazon and UPS can keep the warehouses and shipping going, and the trucks can run to bring the stuff to the warehouses, that's a hell of a lot of serious economic activity (and people eating and drinking and consuming staples in general), vs. "freezing in the dark".

Third, much of what must be done "at work" today can fairly rapidly be done by machines for the most part, fairly soon (within the next decade) IF the financial incentives and necessity are there. From rapid gains in picking crops by machine to producing fast food by machine, for example.

Fourth, this issue is about cost, as we're discussing it on this thread. Despite all the usual cries about doom, if necessary, a LOT of people can adapt and people CAN get to work even if, say gasoline, is a HELL of a lot more expensive. They may not LIKE it, but taking a bus, walking, biking, car pooling, using a MUCH more efficient car, using some form of EV, etc. are ALL very much possible (just off the top), if needed. (I saw quite a bit of that sort of thing during the oil crisis in the 70's by ordinary suburbanites -- without all the tech. we have today).

"Freezing in the dark" isn't the likely problem. "How do we equitably deal with and support an increasingly, and then largely unemployed workforce" IS a serious problem. And of course, since humans don't like to look AHEAD and deal with issues, not much will be done until it's so obviously IN OUR FACE that enough voters wake up to that as a serious issue.

Now, if COVID-19, or anything else gets so bad that goods can't be delivered to people at home reliably (and automation may well be able to play an increasing role there, given what Waymo, MobilEye and others are accomplishing in geofenced areas, and plan to be doing commercially in a couple years), then THAT'S a SERIOUS problem. Or if a relative handful of folks can't work at a factory, again, THAT'S a big problem. Again, despite lots and lots of claims of rapid doom, we're no where close to that level of problem in the forseeable future.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: What does your car really cost you?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 30 Aug 2020, 12:50:25

Outcast_Searcher wrote:First, a HELL of a lot of stuff is done by factories with VERY little human presence. And what human presence there is in such factories can often be spread out, sanitation measures can be employed, etc.

Every factory I have ever seen or worked in has a big parking lot for employee cars that is full for each work shift. As automated as factories have become machines require operators for set ups and adjustments as well as technicians to design the robotic systems and make adjustments as need to maintain quality control. We are still a long way from robots that can problem solve and repair themselves or design a new better process.
If, say, meat packing became untenable due to Covid-19 as it is done today (even with the measures already employed re employee safety), automation could be more heavily employed.
There is a limit to what can be automated as animals vary in size and shape and robots that can see and adapt to those variables are complicated and expensive.
Production would be impacted and prices would rise some, no doubt. But that does NOT mean we "all starve to death in the dark" in ANY way. It WOULD mean collectively we eat less meat, which would actually be a good thing re overall health and AGW, and there WOULD be lots of whining, but whining isn't freezing to death in the dark.
Sorry I prefer to eat less carbs not less meat. You go right ahead though.
Second, a HELL of a lot of stuff can be delivered, at least in the first world. As long as Amazon and UPS can keep the warehouses and shipping going, and the trucks can run to bring the stuff to the warehouses, that's a hell of a lot of serious economic activity (and people eating and drinking and consuming staples in general), vs. "freezing in the dark".
All those delivery vehicles require drivers at least at present.
Third, much of what must be done "at work" today can fairly rapidly be done by machines for the most part, fairly soon (within the next decade) IF the financial incentives and necessity are there. From rapid gains in picking crops by machine to producing fast food by machine, for example.

Fourth, this issue is about cost, as we're discussing it on this thread. Despite all the usual cries about doom, if necessary, a LOT of people can adapt and people CAN get to work even if, say gasoline, is a HELL of a lot more expensive. They may not LIKE it, but taking a bus, walking, biking, car pooling, using a MUCH more efficient car, using some form of EV, etc. are ALL very much possible (just off the top), if needed. (I saw quite a bit of that sort of thing during the oil crisis in the 70's by ordinary suburbanites -- without all the tech. we have today).

"Freezing in the dark" isn't the likely problem. "How do we equitably deal with and support an increasingly, and then largely unemployed workforce" IS a serious problem. And of course, since humans don't like to look AHEAD and deal with issues, not much will be done until it's so obviously IN OUR FACE that enough voters wake up to that as a serious issue.

Now, if COVID-19, or anything else gets so bad that goods can't be delivered to people at home reliably (and automation may well be able to play an increasing role there, given what Waymo, MobilEye and others are accomplishing in geofenced areas, and plan to be doing commercially in a couple years), then THAT'S a SERIOUS problem. Or if a relative handful of folks can't work at a factory, again, THAT'S a big problem. Again, despite lots and lots of claims of rapid doom, we're no where close to that level of problem in the forseeable future.

My statement was.:
If all we can do is hands off via internet we will all starve or freeze to death in the dark. What task you really need can be done remotely? Perhaps one out of five.

Notice the If which is discussing that possibility not predicting that level of restriction. No I don't think we will do all work remotely nor freeze in the dark.
As to my one out of five estimate just what item of food or other useful product do you have in your home that has never been touched by human hands at some point in it's production and transport to your home? A pretty short list I should think.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Previous

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests