Speakeasy forum

Praise

No one is buying cars because they have no jobs to go to.

by JP Bill / January 3, 2013 3:13 AM PST
Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: No one is buying cars because they have no jobs to go to.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: No one is buying cars because they have no jobs to go to.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
And I thought I was just being cheap.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / January 3, 2013 3:25 AM PST

As the car got older the registration and taxes dropped lower so an incentive to keep it.

I wonder how folk would react to an old car tax. (no I don't wonder at all.)
Bob

Collapse -
When I'm done with my car....IT'S DONE!!!
by JP Bill / January 3, 2013 3:29 AM PST

No financial benefit for owning older cars up here. There are fewer and fewer pieces of junk on the road.

Collapse -
Sounds like the same road
by TONI H / January 3, 2013 3:53 AM PST

many ex-husbands travel down........no financial benefit for keeping them around either.

Collapse -
(NT) I guess not, IF that's why you get married.
by JP Bill / January 3, 2013 4:08 AM PST
Collapse -
I could have sworn I told you people
by TONI H / January 3, 2013 4:39 AM PST

this almost three years ago when the Cash for Clunkers crap was going on.....when the Obama-money stopped so did the buying. You guys are really slow...........

Collapse -
You didn't click the link, did you
by Josh K / January 3, 2013 4:58 AM PST

Sales are UP, Toni.

Collapse -
I did...not sure YOU read the whole thing though
by TONI H / January 3, 2013 6:43 AM PST

or did you skip over the parts you didn't like?

>>>But full-year sales at Ford and General Motors lagged. GM's rose only 3.7 percent for the year, while Ford edged up 5 percent. For December, GM sales rose 5 percent, while Ford was up 2 percent.>>>

>>>Demand was led by the Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV, Ram pickup and Chrysler 300 luxury car.>>> So much for the popularity of all those green battery POS vehicles.....which, BTW, the government is the biggest customer for, not the population.

>> She said Ford is more concerned about an increase in the payroll tax, which is scheduled to bounce up to 6.2 percent this year from 4.2 percent in 2011 and 2012. That amounts to a $1,000 to $1,500 tax increase per household, she said.

"We will look at that closely because it will crimp spending in the months ahead," she said.>>> What for that downturn coming.

>>>December featured year-end deals on GM's big pickup trucks; the company offered discounts of up to $9,000 to help clear growing inventory. The move worked. GM cut its full-size pickup supply by more than 20,000 in December to about 222,000.>>> The only way they could get rid of them was to play "Huge Cash for Pickups" or they would still be sitting in the lots.

>>> The Polk auto research firm predicted even stronger U.S. sales for 2013, forecasting 15.3 million as the economy continues to improve. Polk, based in Southfield, Mich., expects 43 new models to be introduced, up 50 percent from last year. New models usually boost sales.

The firm also predicts a rebound in sales of large pickups and midsize cars. All eight of the top manufacturers are strong and introducing new vehicles, and that should bring competition and lower prices in those segments, according to Tom Libby, lead North American analyst for Polk.

But the firm's optimistic forecasts hinge on Washington reaching an agreement on government debt limits and spending cuts.>>>>

Polk is sitting around with their fingers crossed.........the CBO recently said that the deal that got put into place two days ago will actually cost 600,000 jobs. Good luck with that Polk wishful thinking.

Collapse -
RE: did you skip over the parts you didn't like?
by JP Bill / January 3, 2013 10:59 AM PST

Like you did?

I'm a glass half full kinda' guy and you're a glass half empty kinda' guy.

Collapse -
So, they discount the gas guzzling big block vehicles becaus
by Ziks511 / January 3, 2013 12:54 PM PST

e there's no demand for "Green" vehicles? Nah, they discount the vehicles on which their margins are largest, and for which demand is expected to be soft. I wouldn't touch anything that wasn't at least a hybrid, and I think that's true of anybody who didn't absolutely need a big vehicle, or who had money to burn because that's what you're doing every time you fill up.

Rob

Collapse -
hybrids and money to burn
by Roger NC / January 4, 2013 11:56 AM PST

Sorry Rob, not a reason for a hybrid.

Last numbers I saw, you can get a car of equal size that the gas milage is good enough so that the time require to save the difference is past the time you'd have to replace the battery, and that would push the break even time even further.

Doesn't mean hybrids are bad, just that you can't sell them on the average cost basis.

Well, that was the standard hybrid model. The claims for the newer ones if you "top" them off at home overnight are conflicting. Reminds me one coworker that said he'd buy a Volt if the company would put receptacles in the parking lot.

Collapse -
And we can't just think of the money
by Steven Haninger / January 4, 2013 6:21 PM PST

We'll need to deal with constructing and deconstructing the batteries. All of this requires energy we've not had to use in the past. If it adds to the total energy use in building and later disposal of the car, we need to add that into the algorithm for proper computation of savings. We can't look at this as just a money issue but must also look at resource use.

Collapse -
I think electric and ethanol vehicles may have a nich
by Roger NC / January 4, 2013 9:27 PM PST

particularly in cities famous for smog problems due to traffic sitting snarled so much at commuting times.

I don't think they're better for all situations. I believe the current requirement that so much of our crop % wise must be used for ethanol is wrong. I agree that it's a wash as far as any savings, pollution or oil, when you're talking about traffic that moves along smoothly. Vehicles get less mpg on 10% ethanol than they do on 100% gasoline, so if there is no traffic stalling/jams there is basically no savings on pollution because you burn more. It's less pollution per gallon, but you burn more, so......

The hybrid cars with external charging capability are were I would see possibly more use. The unsubsidized cost is too high right now to claim much of a savings in shorter time frame. However, they supposely do eventually save money. For someone that believed they helped the enviornment, or those smog bowl areas, paying more up front and breaking even later at least gives the option.

Collapse -
Less Pollution
by James Denison / January 5, 2013 3:28 AM PST
"Vehicles get less mpg on 10% ethanol than they do on 100% gasoline, so if there is no traffic stalling/jams there is basically no savings on pollution because you burn more. It's less pollution per gallon, but you burn more, so......"

so....does that mean you think it's the same amount of pollution? If so, then what if one runs a car on 100% ethanol? Obviously there is some lessened pollution factor for the amount of ethanol burned. Where the same or greater amount of pollution might factor in is back during ethanol production.

I think having alternative fuel sources is a wise idea, so long as it's inherent inefficiencies are not expanded too much except during times of crisis where such alternative fuel is needed in greater demand due to something like the Arab Oil Embargo in the 70's.
Collapse -
I don't know the mpg of ethanol like flex 85% fuel
by Roger NC / January 5, 2013 3:39 AM PST
In reply to: Less Pollution

I do understand that ethanol does burn cleaner, that's why I can see ethanol, as well as electric cars, may have a place in smog heavy cities and in inversion bowl type places. I understand that Phoenix Arizonia is one place that lack of replacement air moving into the region often creates a real problem.

I've read claims that in traffic that is moving without traffic jams and long delays that the lower mpg makes the pollution approximately equal. I can't quote the numbers. It would seem to be reasonable if it lowers mpg.

If and when they can come up with a better source than corn for the ethanol, it may be much more useful, even subsized to an extent. There has been reports from time to time that they could get ethanol from corn silage, stalks, etc rather than the corn itself. Hasn't seemed to work out.

I believe that sugar cane is an excellent source of ethanol, but the US doesn't grow that much of it.

Collapse -
Your own examples show that sales are up
by Josh K / January 3, 2013 10:16 PM PST

You claimed nobody was buying cars because they have no jobs to go to. You just proved yourself wrong.

Collapse -
My claim was from months ago, Josh
by TONI H / January 3, 2013 10:20 PM PST

and by their own numbers, sales have dropped off again as more people have been laid off and out of the workforce and unable to not only not get credit, but they couldn't make the payments. Would you rather they went into debt for something they can't afford like the government pushed for home loans to people like that?

Collapse -
The dealerships closed for the night....
by Josh K / January 3, 2013 11:39 PM PST

.....which sparked a sudden drop in sales. Clearly Obama's fault. Wink

Collapse -
Well you certainly missed the point of Cash for Clunkers.
by Ziks511 / January 3, 2013 12:46 PM PST

It was about saving the Auto industry, which it and the bailouts (already repaid) did successfully. In other words it was about jobs, not about sales.

If we're slow, you're ... mistaken? confused? obtuse? Choose whatever you prefer.

Rob

Collapse -
(NT) Yes, it really helped Japanese car manufacturers
by James Denison / January 3, 2013 2:46 PM PST
Collapse -
Actually you're the one who
by TONI H / January 3, 2013 9:36 PM PST

missed the point of it.....it had nothing to do with saving the industry (that was done with the bailout). The whole idea of the Clunkers program was because BO wanted all the old 'gas' vehicles off the road and give incentives to people to buy the newer hybrids that ran on both gas and battery. His Executive Order to the car industry now is to get vehicles running a minimum of 50 MPG by 2015 or 2020 which will make them so expensive that people will start veering away from them and go to the battery tiny cars instead.

Collapse -
We could become President
by James Denison / January 4, 2013 12:59 AM PST

and issue an order that in a few years everyone had to wear feathers and flap their arms to wherever they wanted to go. After all, if it's a presidential order, it must happen.

Collapse -
Still got oldie
by Willy / January 3, 2013 1:59 PM PST

I'm not buying a new car that's for sure. Yeah, I know car sales have been pretty good lately. All that article mentions is probably true. However, besides having jobs and cash or ease of loans, the plain fact is buyers are in the mode to buy. That old car maybe asking too much to repair or become unreliable. However, in my case I'll buy a new car when prices aren't so high. Geeezz, a loan for 72mos(or less) maybe something in the $20K range and I get approved. NOPE!!! Little squirt cars for $30K+ easy and maybe save on gas but too little for me. SUV, forget that gas hog, but i still need a truck(p/u) but they will be used until I take a dirt nap. A car is going to be used and it better be US made(cross-fingers) or a huge chunk of it, if I get another one. Back to the auto auction. -----Willy Happy

Collapse -
Just to be ornery
by Steven Haninger / January 3, 2013 6:10 PM PST
In reply to: Still got oldie

It just might be that foreign badged vehicles have (or are becoming) the most "Made in USA" cars you'll find. Your buying choice just might be based on how much of your money you'd prefer to go to a worker and how much to a retiree. Devil

Collapse -
Just for giggles,the Toyota Tundra has more American parts &
by Tony Holmes / January 4, 2013 12:04 AM PST
In reply to: Just to be ornery
Collapse -
That's true of many cars
by Josh K / January 4, 2013 12:11 AM PST

What's more "American," a Chevy built in Canada or Mexico, or a Honda built in Ohio?

Collapse -
Another question, where does the profit go
by Roger NC / January 4, 2013 11:59 AM PST

here, or there?

Collapse -
Auto repair and what were they thinking
by Willy / January 4, 2013 2:01 AM PST
In reply to: Just to be ornery

While much attention is given to Detroit and MI as being the auto world of USA, alot of it is really all over the USA. Not just the manufacture as in building an auto, but all the "sub-parts" that get the made in USA label. Think of all the seats, cloth/vinyl, alternators, brakes, wiring and such and find much of is from the USA(Ohio?) or maybe not. It never ceases to amaze me that parts are brought because they can save $.01 per part by bulk and what have you. But, all too often it falls short. Items like brake parts come from Brazil, yet they rust so fast or breakdown too soon. Gawd, forget about UK made parts, they seem to forget its suppose to be used after manufacture. Maybe that axle is made in USA but all the bearing come from Canada. I've read in late '70's early '80's that many Nippon autos were build w/o AC or they awaited until they hit US shores, because US made AC was far better and "materials" were easier to get here(raw items). Doesn't anyone recall earlier Nippon cars just rusting away far too soon compared to US cars. Yet, I recall '80s US autos had many a bumper limping or barely hanging on, because they rusted so fast. That was suppose to work in a 5mph crash and people drive around at 5mph. No wonder pickups became a very popular driving vehicle and overall sold at lower cost, until SUVs came around. I would rather drive a p/u because I can try to repair it and have "access" to more easily repair whatever. I've replaced spark plugs on newer autos and become bloodied from all the twists and turns, etc. just to reach them, what were they thinking??? Heck, just changing the oil filter is brain twister. Sorry, sometimes I fret because I still got one p/u in the barn and the brake line(s) is rusted out, ON A 2002 model, completely kaput. My old '92 may rust but it takes eons to get there. Plus that dang computer box for brakes, what a PITA. ------Willy Happy

Collapse -
Datsuns were rustbuckets
by Steven Haninger / January 4, 2013 2:14 AM PST

The new company name is Nissan and these fare much better. I also remember reading that the ride of early Japanese cars compared to that of sitting on a buckboard. I do wonder how often it happens that a name change is needed to even begin to earn back customer respect.

Collapse -
The old joke.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / January 4, 2013 2:20 AM PST

"We need a new name for the company in a hour."

"Dat soon?"

"Thanks!"

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Help 47,885 discussions
icon
Computer Newbies 10,322 discussions
icon
iPhones, iPods, & iPads 3,188 discussions
icon
Security 30,333 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 20,177 discussions
icon
HDTV Picture Setting 1,932 discussions
icon
Phones 15,713 discussions
icon
Windows 7 6,210 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 14,510 discussions

Big stars on small screens

Smosh tells CNET what it took to make it big online

Internet sensations Ian Hecox and Anthony Padilla discuss how YouTube has changed and why among all their goals, "real TV" isn't an ambition.