Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by twojacobtwo 780 days ago
You clearly don't know a lot of people who aren't wealthy. The majority of people I know couldn't spend 10k on anything except absolute necessities, let alone a car. Of those who do have vehicles, none of them spend $10k/year and if they did it would damn near break them.

Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but god damn this is out of touch for people who are struggling.
2 comments
nradov 779 days ago
Before you accuse someone of being out of touch, take a look at the average new car transaction price. It's now up to $47K. When you factor in loan payments, insurance, maintenance, and fuel then a huge number of people are spending $1K/month or more on their vehicles. These are literally average people, not wealthy.

https://www.coxautoinc.com/market-insights/kbb-atp-january-2...

link
twojacobtwo 779 days ago
'New car' being the operative term there. Also note that I said out of touch with people who are struggling. No one who's truly struggling to get by is going to be buying a new car and certainly not at those prices.

To clarify further, my response is primarily aimed at the idea that the op couldn't even understand why people would need the government to help pay for things and pre-supposes the idea that all of us can afford $10k per year on a car.

link
jandrewrogers 780 days ago
They were clearly talking about the average American, not "people who are struggling". Ignoring whether or not it is wise, the majority of American households can technically afford to spend this much on a car and a large percentage do.
link
fbdab103 780 days ago
A car directly impacts the ability of many to work/live. Not having transportation can leave you cut off from society if you are in an area without alternatives.
link
twojacobtwo 779 days ago
OP said 'we'. Perhaps my psychic abilities are malfunctioning, but how do you see that this is a case for using clearly? The OP can't understand the inability for people to pay for things without government assistance, as if there aren't vast swaths of people who can't afford the very thing he is presupposing. People who are struggling should be considered and the very fact that the use of 'we' somehow excludes them in those considerations is kind of the point.
link