I'll believe this "ackchually cars are essential for poor people" nonsense when the biggest selling car in America isn't a massive, expensive pickup truck.
It's financially disastrous for poor people to take a loan to buy a depreciating asset that sits parked 95% of the time. And requires monthly expenses for insurance and parking.
Moving to EVs means middle- and upper-middle class people have a decision to make: spend money on switching, or join everyone else in public transit.
In America, even most poor people have cars. In the bottom income quantile, 70% of households own a car: https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Transportation-Cost-Burden-Tr.... In the bottom 20-40%, it’s 88%. And in the lowest income quantile, households spend over $6,000 per year on transportation. It’s not “financially disastrous,” because the alternative is paying much more money in rent and losing the flexibility to pursue job opportunities in different places. Lack of geographic flexibility to pursue housing and jobs is a huge burden on carless people, and traps people in failing communities.[1]
The middle income quantile spends $11,000 per year on transportation. The median US car payment is $749 new and $529 used. The sooner we force middle class people and up move to EVs—which they can afford to do—the sooner we can create a robust market for used EVs for the bottom quantile.
[1] One of the biggest differences I noticed between Baltimore, where I lived, and rural Oregon, where my wife’s family is from, is that people in Baltimore are trapped in dangerous neighborhoods with no job prospects. Their lack of mobility turns them into wards of the state. People in rural Oregon are just as poor, but they can move around looking for housing and work. E.g. someone who loses their job can move in with family in the middle of nowhere and still commute to find part time work or pursue job leads in the towns.
> The sooner we force middle class people and up move to EVs—which they can afford to do—the sooner we can create a robust market for used EVs for the bottom quantile.
Completely agree.
> And in the lowest income quantile, households spend over $6,000 per year on transportation.
And that's a much bigger impact on personal finances, proportionately, than higher-income people.
> because the alternative is paying much more money in rent and losing the flexibility to pursue job opportunities in different places
Because that's how American cities are built. Destroy yourself financially (and healthwise - 1h/day in the car is awful) driving, suffer through terribly long commutes on a bus route that drives everywhere, or rent shitty "luxury" shoeboxes near work. I agree it's not practical to fix it in the short-term. I just resent middle- and upper-middle class people opposing government incentives to switch to EVs because "it'll hurt the poor". Like no, the poor are screwed either way, you just don't want to pay up.
It’s not just “American cities.” Even in Tokyo—which has transit better than what Americans could ever aspire to build—getting around on public transit takes much longer than driving. And it can take even longer if you change jobs and your workplace is no longer near the same train like as your previous workplace. Even with Tokyo’s amazing infrastructure, people using public transit there don’t have as much geographic flexibility in finding jobs and housing as my wife’s lower income family members in rural Oregon and Idaho.
For the modestly priced vehicles, the $7,500 tax credit is a huge contributor to depreciation that people seem to overlook. When I purchased a Nissan Leaf back in 2022, the sticker price was like $28,000, and the price after the $7,500 rebate was $20,500. So of course, if you were to turn around right away and try to sell it on the used market, you wouldn't be able to sell it for more than $20,500, since buyers would be crazy to buy it used from you, when they could buy a brand new one for $20,500. So that like 27% depreciate just due to the tax credit. And then for the more luxury EVs (like Audi, Mercedes, etc), there is the fact that luxury vehicles already depreciate more than less expensive cars (ICE included). And the battery tech keeps getting better, so fewer people want a 200 mile version when the newer versions have 300 mile range. So there is less of a market for $100k MSRP vehicles three years later that are going for $40k, since people are also worried about luxury priced repairs / maintenance, when they could get a new $40k Chevy, with a bigger battery and new warranty, etc.
It's financially disastrous for poor people to take a loan to buy a depreciating asset that sits parked 95% of the time. And requires monthly expenses for insurance and parking.
Moving to EVs means middle- and upper-middle class people have a decision to make: spend money on switching, or join everyone else in public transit.